Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION

Training Colleges (Science Lecturers)

Mr. Boyden: asked the Minister of Education how many mixed training colleges, women's training colleges and men's training colleges are still without full-time lecturers in chemistry or physics.

The Minister of Education (Sir Edward Boyle): Full-time lecturers in chemistry or physics are concentrated in 44 general colleges where considerable numbers of science teachers are being trained for secondary schools: of the remaining 79 colleges, 26 are mixed, 50 are for women and 3 for men. Some have lecturers taking chemistry or physics with another subject and almost all offer main courses in biology, rural science or general science and are staffed accordingly.

Mr. Boyden: The Minister is getting vaguer than his predecessor, but do not these figures worry him? How does he expect proper teaching of science in secondary modern schools, for example, if there are not far more specialist teachers in chemistry or physics in the training colleges?

Sir E. Boyle: Of course, many of these colleges, particularly the women's colleges, are making their main contribution on the primary side, and it is natural that their courses should be less specialised. Our policy has been to try to concentrate the valuable teaching equipment and specialist training staff on specialist training for secondary schools. I entirely agree with the hon.

Gentleman about the importance of science teachers being trained for science work in general secondary schools.

Mr. Willey: In view of that agreement, can the Minister say how many are being adequately trained in the training colleges for science teaching in the secondary schools?

Sir E. Boyle: I can say that, to reduce the shortage of science teachers, we are hoping for an enlarged graduate supply, especially as much of the university expansion has been on the science side. From the training colleges, the recent numbers entering high-level specialist courses in science certainly will help—and the number is about 385 entrants this year as against 350 last year—and so will the 500 or so students who enter for ordinary courses in chemistry and physics each year.

Colleges of Advanced Technology (Unfilled Posts)

Mr. Boyden: asked the Minister of Education how many posts in colleges of advanced technology remain unfilled; in what subjects the vacancies occur; and what new steps have been taken to fill these posts.

Sir E. Boyle: There are now 1,856 teachers in post and 188 vacancies as compared with 1,671 in post and 215 vacancies last February. Of the unfilled posts 94 are in engineering, 48 in mathematics and science and 46 in other subjects. The colleges are continuing to use all possible methods of recruiting new staff, including the appointment of part-time lecturers from industry.

Mr. Boyden: What recent steps has the right hon. Gentleman taken both to encourage industry to release technologists and scientists part-time, and also to persuade them to second on short full-time loan this category of teacher?

Sir E. Boyle: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will give me notice of that question, and I will communicate with him. I would say that over half the vacancies I have mentioned are in the higher grades of principal lecturer and above. I think that this deficiency to some extent reflects the high standards which the C.A.T.s must set in making appointments and the overall demand for people of this calibre.

University Graduates (Overseas Appointments)

Mr. Gower: asked the Minister of Education what estimate he has made of the number of graduates of British universities who, after receiving grants from public funds for their education, take posts in other countries immediately or soon after they leave university; and if he will make a statement.

Sir E. Boyle: I have no such estimate. I understand that the University Grants Committee, in consultation with the University Appointments Boards, is collecting information about the occupations which graduates take up, including information about those who go abroad. This survey, which will be published in the spring, will not, however, show how many of the graduates had received grants from public funds.

Mr. Gower: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, since I tabled this Question, I have received a great deal of correspondence from all over the country containing an enormous number of suggestions that people receiving this help from public funds should enter into some form of undertaking that they will work in this country for a prescribed number of years? While not necessarily agreeing about this, I should like to know what my right hon. Friend thinks about it.

Sir E. Boyle: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the way in which he put his supplementary question. I do not entirely agree, for two reasons. First, it may well be that, in the interests of this country in the longer run, people should do some job abroad and return to take up appointments in this country, but, more important, 90 per cent. of all undergraduates are assisted to some extent out of public funds, and while this may leave them with some sense of obligation, I do not think we should regard this as imposing an obligation on them. We have our system of public education because our community wants it that way. I should not feel happy about any suggestion that this imposes an obligation.

Sir A. V. Harvey: Will my right hon. Friend resist the well-intended suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) and agree that the fact of undergraduates going abroad after com-

pleting their training, whether to America or to the Commonwealth, brings us nothing but dividends in the long run?

Sir E. Boyle: In fairness to my hon. Friend the Member for Barry (Mr. Gower), I would point out that he was merely passing on suggestions which had been made rather than giving his own views. There is, however, a great deal in what my hon. Friend has suggested.

Sixth-Form Pupils

Mr. Swingler: asked the Minister of Education to what extent in the last two years more pupils have been staying on at school to do sixth-form work with the intention of undertaking university courses.

Sir E. Boyle: In the educational year 1961–62, 92,000 secondary school pupils entered the first year of a sixth form course, 66,000 entered the second year and 15,000 the third year. I am unable to say how many intended to enter a university.

Mr. Swingler: Is not the Minister aware that the figures for this year already show that an increasing number intended to enter university but that many were desperately disappointed to find that the chances of entering a university were getting more difficult? Without making too much of the general point, would not the Minister, in view of the widespread dismay amongst teachers, parents and children about the frustration of not being able to got a place at university in spite of getting two or three passes at A-level, press his colleagues in the Government to have an immediate review of the chances for university education?

Sir E. Boyle: The hon. Member is going rather wider than his Question and he has a later one down to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. All I will say in answer to the hon. Member now is that it is a mistake simply to relate demand from the sixth form of schools to university education. One must think of higher education as a whole. It is important to remember the part that the colleges of advanced technology, the regional and area colleges and the training colleges also have to play in providing full-time higher education.

Mr. Rankin: Will the Minister remember that in Scotland we are short not only at university level, but at the higher technological level, and that he has supported this?

Sir E. Boyle: As the hon. Member knows, the Scottish aspect of the matter is not within my direct responsibility.

Minor Works, Kent

Mr. J. Wells: asked the Minister of Education how much of the £6 million increase in expenditure on minor works has been allocated to Kent for the current year; and what percentage this represents of the Kent County Council's request.

Sir E. Boyle: The Answer to the first part of the Question is £90,000; and to the second part, about 41 per cent.

Mr. Wells: is my right hon. Friend aware of the very great problems in Kent, where we have many old church schools which are being converted, and that the fact that the council itself may be allowed to do minor works of under £2,000 really amounts to nothing? Cannot my right hon. Friend give the county council a far more generous allocation on its request?

Sir E. Boyle: My hon. Friend has raised the matter before and I accept that Kent is one of those counties with a good many old voluntary controlled schools. I can, however, give my hon. Friend this piece of comfort. Kent submitted its list in two parts, the first consisting of projects of high priority, and the allocations which I have made should enable the Kent authority to carry out seven of the eight projects on its priority list.

Mr. Willey: In view of the misleading impression that 'the Parliamentary Secretary created in reply to a supplementary question of mine, probably inadvertently, will the Minister confirm that in 1960–61 the value of minor works started was £21 million and that the still has a long way to go before he restores the minor works programme to this level? Does the Minister realise that, in view of the need to accelerate this programme and in view of the good work that can be done particularly in rural and some old urban schools, his first priority should be to ensure that the

minor works programme is restored as soon as possible to the 1960–61 level?

Sir E. Boyle: The hon. Member is not quite right about this. My figure for 1960–61 is £18 million and one has to remember that the minor works programme excludes projects costing less than £2,000. The hon. Member is not, therefore, comparing like with like.

Mr. Willey: Will the Minister look at the reply given by his predecessor, then Sir David Eccles, on 10th May and provide a reconciliation between that figure and the one that he has now given us?

Sir E. Boyle: I have, of course, seen all previous replies on the matter. I was simply trying to answer the question put by the hon. Member.

Mr. Sydney Irving: The Minister will forgive me if I find it difficult to follow his figures. Is he aware that the cuts produced by Circular 13/61 in Kent cut the already inadequate minor works programme by three-quarters to £400,000 and that the present allocation does little or nothing either to restore those cuts or to increase them? In view of the increase in population in Kent as a result of electrification, overspill, drift, and so on, will the Minister reconsider the allocation?

Sir E. Boyle: The fact that Kent should be able to carry out seven of the eight projects to which it gave higher priority will at least mean that there can be quite considerable progress in that authority.

Mr. J. Wells: asked the Minister of Education what expenditure on minor capital works the Kent County Council proposed in 1960–61 and in 1963–64; and what sum he has accepted for each year, respectively.

Sir E. Boyle: The authority proposed £875,900 for 1960–61 and £879,350 for 1963–64. Its allocations for the two years were £455,000 and £260,000, respectively. The allocation for 1963–64 does not have to cover projects costing less than £2,000 whereas that for the earlier year did.

Mr. Wells: This vast cut in the allocation to Kent is absolutely disgraceful. Will my right hon. Friend look at the matter again?

Sir E. Boyle: We have already dealt with Kent in the previous Question. These matters are not easily discussed at Question Time, because one has to be so careful to compare like with like. The allocation to local authorities for 1963–64 is considerably smaller than for 1960–61, partly, for example, because we now make a bigger allocation to English aided and special agreement schools. That follows directly from the Act which was passed with the approval of the whole House in 1959.

Mr. Wells: This bears no relation whatever to the minor works, mentioned in an earlier supplementary question, to the church schools which are now taken over. In view of the very unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Sir E. Boyle: I shall welcome a debate on this matter on the Adjournment. That will enable me to deploy my figures at greater length than is possible at Question Time. I hope that before we come to the debate on the Adjournment—[Interruption.]—I am entitled to answer this—

Mr. Willey: On a point of order. Is it in order for the Minister to pursue his reply when his hon. Friend has given notice that he will raise the matter on the Adjournment?

Mr. Speaker: Precisely nothing is in order. The hon. Member for Maidstone (Mr. J. Wells) departed from the established practice in the proper form of words and made a speech in giving notice. The Minister was wholly out of order in replying after that stage.

Sixth-Form Pupils, South Wales

Mr. Morris: asked the Minister of Education the number of sixth-formers in South Wales who, having failed to obtain a place at a university this session, have returned to school.

Sir E. Boyle: I regret that the information is not available.

Mr. Morris: In view of the frustration of a large number of children in South Wales, will the Minister take steps to discover what is the situation? Does he realise that the acid test of university

expansion is whether, as the years go by, boys and girls with the same qualifications have a better, or at least an equal, chance of entry to university on application than their predecessors have done? Can he give an assurance to the Welsh school leavers in 1965 and 1970 that if they have the identical qualifications of their predecessors in 1951 or 1955, they will be able to enter university?

Sir E. Boyle: That information could be obtained only by an approach to the headmasters of secondary schools with sixth forms and would impose a disproportionate amount of work. One must not look simply at the universities. The number of full-time and sandwich first-year students taking advanced courses at the Welsh College of Advanced Technology was only 195 in 1959–60, but 268 in 1961–62.

Mr. Morris: Do I take it that the Minister cannot give any assurance to the school leavers in 1965 and 1970 that if they have the same academic qualifications as their predecessors had in 1951 or 1955, they will be able to enter university?

Sir E. Boyle: As the hon. Member knows, in the 1960s we shall have not only the expansion of university places of 35 per cent. in five years, which is the Government's target, but also a considerable expansion of the colleges of advanced technology. We are also getting ahead with teacher training expansion and expansion of the technical colleges, too. It is a mistake to think of the problem solely in relation to the universities.

Dr. King: Since it is clear that a number of boys and girls in the sixth forms who are entitled to go to university will not get places this year and that the position will be cumulatively worse next year, will the Minister treat as a matter of urgency the provision of an alternative for the sixth formers who are qualified to enter university but will not get there?

Sir E. Boyle: I fully appreciate the anxiety which is felt on this matter in all parts of the House. This is to some extent a problem which results from the success in expanding the sixth forms. My concern is that when Questions are asked in


the House, the whole field of full-time higher education should be looked at and not only the universities.

Secondary Schools Examinations Council (Report)

Mrs. Slater: asked the Minister of Education (1) what will be the relationship between the proposed Certificate of Secondary Education and the General Certificate of Education O Level examinations;
(2) whether in accepting the proposals of the Secondary Schools Examinations Council on a new school leaving certificate other than the General Certificate of Education, he accepts the assumption that up to 20 per cent. of the 16-years-old age group may be expected to attempt General Certificate of Education 0 Level in four or more subjects and that the new examination might be taken on four or more subjects by candidates in the next 20 per cent. below these.

Sir E. Boyle: I am still considering the proposals of the Secondary School Examinations Council in its Fifth Report but, as I understand the recommendation which the hon. Member has in mind, the Council intended to give no more than general guidance as to the standard of the examinations.

Mrs. Slater: When the Minister is considering these recommendations, will he take two points into consideration? The suggestion that, if a person takes subjects in G.C.E.—or, to put it the other way round, in the Certificate of Secondary Education—he cannot also take the same subjects in the other examination will be a too rigid rule. Will he also consider the other recommendation that there should be 20 per cent. of the school population considered good enough for G.C.E. and 20 per cent. of it considered good enough for the Certificate of Secondary Education? Will not this put our children in great difficulty, because they cannot move up or down if these percentages are strictly adhered to?

Sir E. Boyle: Of course I will bear all those points in mind. I can tell the hon. Lady that I know that the Certificate of Secondary Education Standing Committee of the Council, with the help of my Department's Curriculum Study Group,

is giving a great deal of thought to the relationship which should exist between the two examinations. May I say here and now that I entirely share the view of the Council that if the examination is offered it should stand on its own feet and not just be a pale watered-down imitation of the G.C.E.

Mr. Willey: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that most educationists will be relieved that he has an open mind on this matter? Does he realise that if these examinations in practice were to become mutually exclusive it would have a disastrous effect on secondary education?

Sir E. Boyle: I shall bear all these points in mind. I deliberately have not made any public speech on this subject, because I think that much thought is needed before any firm declaration of Ministry policy is made.

Mr. D. Smith: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, if we have too many certificates of educational qualifications, those who are unable to obtain any at all will eventually feel themselves social outcasts?

Sir E. Boyle: This is a point that concerned very many people when the Report was originally received. On the other hand, I think that there are many factors to take into account, and the really important point is to ensure that the new examination stands on its own two feet as something of value and does not simply attempt to be a pale imitation of something else.

Grammar School Places, Malvern and West Worcestershire

Sir P. Agnew: asked the Minister of Education what consideration he has given to the future availability of places in grammar schools for boys and girls, respectively, in Malvern and West Worcestershire; what proposals he has received from the Worcestershire Education Authority for the building of a new grammar school in that area or the enlargement and modernisation of the school at Hanley Castle; and if he will make a statement.

Sir E. Boyle: I understand that the Worcestershire local education authority is reviewing the whole question of grammar school places for Malvern and


the surrounding districts but that it will need firmer indications of future population than are yet available before it can reach conclusions. In these circumstances the authority has not submitted to me any grammar school proposals for the 1964–65 school building programme.

Sir P. Agnew: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it may be some time before the future population trends in that part are known, owing to the delay in deciding on the future local government organisation, the building of new towns, and overspills, and the like? Is he aware that, if the decision upon whether there are to be enough grammar school places in the area for the children that are there now is to wait upon all that, there will be very grave frustration and many children who would be deserving of places will not be able to obtain them? Will my right hon. Friend therefore urge the Worcester education authority to come to a decision and ask for his approval on it?

Sir E. Boyle: I am sure that the authority will take notice of what my hon. Friend has said. I will certainly keep in touch with the authority about this, though it is for the authority in the first instance to make proposals. It is fair to say that the general secondary school at Malvern covers a very wide field of abilities. I have visited it. It is an excellent school. My hon. Friend is quite right in saying that one must bear in mind those children who can gain from the atmosphere of a grammar school. I will certainly think over what is said and consider whether there is any action I can properly take.

Primary Schools (First Appointments)

Mr. Willey: asked the Minister of Education what was the number of first appointments made in primary schools this year; and how this compares with the corresponding figure for the previous year.

Sir E. Boyle: One thousand, three hundred and eighty-seven, compared with 6,464 in 1961. The decrease of 5,077 was a consequence of the reduction of the output of the training colleges, resulting from the introduction of the three-year course in 1960.

Mr. Willey: I appreciate the reason for this disastrous fall, but does the right hon. Gentleman accept that it is particularly unfortunate that this should have coincided with the first year of the second bulge entering primary schools? In view of this, will he make an immediate statement on his programme with regard to the training colleges, because the applications now for places in the training colleges are being considered? Unless he makes a statement immediately, it will not have any practical effect. We need a drastic increase in the number of those admitted to the training colleges.

Sir E. Boyle: I have said in the House before that I personally think that the training colleges have had an outstanding achievement in admitting nearly 17,000 for this year, the year in which for the first time we have had three separate years of entry into the colleges. The figures of admissions next year will be bigger again than the admissions this year as our programme of expansion continues. With regard to those who have not got places, the fact that there are less than 1,000 people with first-class qualifications who have not got in is very much better than many of us would have dared to hope for some months ago.

Mr. Willey: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we are dealing with the current year? Unless he makes a statement now, many applicants who would otherwise qualify for training college education will not get it. There is a burden upon him to make a statement now about the increase in the number of places at training colleges, otherwise the opportunity will be lost. We know, as he knows, that the bulge will continue for at least the next three or four years.

Sir E. Boyle: I can certainly make the statement, as I have made it in the House before in answer to Questions, that we shall push ahead with the expansion programme which has already been planned as fast as we can.

Autism

Mr. Compton Carr: asked the Minister of Education what steps he is taking to enable education authorities to


ascertain the size of the problem of autism in children in their respective areas.

Sir E. Boyle: Psychiatrists working in child guidance clinics are trained to recognise autism and other forms of psychosis, as are school medical officers qualified to examine children who appear to suffer from a disability of mind. The first need of the psychotic child is medical attention. This is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health. It is not yet possible to assess the extent of the demand for educational facilities.

Mr. Compton Carr: Is my right hon. Friend aware that education authorities which are already willing to assist in this matter maintain that it is a very difficult task for them to undertake on their own? Is he willing, when they express the need for assistance in ascertaining the size of this problem, to give them some assistance by the Ministry?

Sir E. Boyle: Local education authorities which provide educational facilities for these children clearly need to work in very close association with hospital authorities. Teachers provided by L.E.A.s are employed at the majority of existing hospital units for the care and treatment of psychotic children. However, I will bear in mind the point my hon. Friend has made, but this is essentially a matter for co-operation between the education services and the Health Service.

Immigrant Children (Teaching Methods)

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Minister of Education what research he is conducting into the teaching methods most suitable for immigrant children.

Sir E. Boyle: I am not conducting any specific research, but a group of Her Majesty's inspectors are giving regular attention to the best methods of teaching English to immigrant children.

Mr. Dalyell: Is it possible that the deliberations of Her Majesty's inspectors will be made available before the beginning of the next academic year, because this is a problem of the very greatest urgency?

Sir E. Boyle: I should not like to give a date, but if the hon. Gentleman would

like to write to me or raise a debate on a suitable occasion I should be glad to give him such information as I can on this question. In some areas children who need English lessons are collected in a central class. In others they are being taught individually. Some authorities are employing what one might call peripatetic and other special teachers for this kind of work. I shall be glad to give the hon. Gentleman any information I can.

Teaching of Russian (Annan Report)

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Minister of Education what action he is taking to establish pilot schemes in the teaching of Russian in primary schools since the publication of the Annan Report.

Sir E. Boyle: I am considering the possibility of organising, jointly with the Nuffield Foundation, a pilot scheme for foreign language teaching in primary schools. This experiment is unlikely to include Russian, but one of its objects will be to establish whether more pupils would be likely to learn a second foreign language, including Russians, in the secondary schools, if an earlier start were made with a first foreign language.

Mr. Dalyell: Is the Minister aware that a pupil's imitative linguistic ability may be at its height between the ages of 8 and 12 and there is every reason for teaching the Cyrillic alphabet during the primary school period?

Sir E. Boyle: This is an interesting point which I should be pleased to study further. On the whole, the general feeling I have encountered is that primary schools can best help by preparing the way for the introduction of Russian at a later stage. I know that there are others who feel like the hon. Member and I have a completely open mind on this question.

Mrs. Slater: Can the Minister tell us why he puts another language, which I think would be French, in preference to Russian, since Russian may be very much more useful at the end of the child's life than French may be?

Sir E. Boyle: The hon. Lady is on a perfectly fair point. Mainly for scientists and for others a knowledge of Russian and the work being done in Russian is


going to be of crucial importance. I am told that where French is taught by certain means to very young children they can act in a French play within quite a few months, even if they have no academic knowledge of French grammar. I am not sure whether the same could happen with Russian. I think that there are real doubts about this. In other words, we know more where French is concerned than we know where Russian is concerned. I repeat that I have a completely open mind on this subject.

Mr. Dalyell: How does the Minister explain the fact that Greek has been taught to little boys with considerable success for many decades?

Sir E. Boyle: I am bound to say that people may hold different opinions as to the amount of success with which both Latin and Greek have been taught to certain boys at school. The Report of the Annan Committee suggests that our main efforts for the present should go to teaching Russian in secondary schools catering for abler children, but I must emphasise that this is a subject which needs to be studied and considered further.

Caravans, A.2 Road (Children)

Mr. Dodds: asked the Minister of Education what steps have been taken to see that the children of school age from the caravans on both sides of the A.2 trunk road near the Laughing Water Restaurant, about two miles outside Rochester, attend school; and what have been their results.

Sir E. Boyle: Representatives of the local education authority visited this site yesterday and found one child aged 8 not attending school. School places are available for children living here but enforcement is difficult because they move so frequently.

Mr. Dodds: Does not the right hon. Gentleman know that when a representative went there yesterday most of these families had already moved on? Is he not aware that this winter hundreds of these families will be moved from place to place day by day and will consequently be unable to send their children to school because there is no place within the law? Is he not

aware that all the children of the 50 families of gypsies on my camp at Cobham are going to school? These families are begging to go there, but there is not any place for them. The limit is reached. What is he going to do about it?

Sir E. Boyle: Before the hon. Gentleman gets too indignant with me, I think that he should consider the point of view of school attendance officers. Any school attendance order must name the particular school to be attended. If a child is constantly on the move, for whatever reason, it is difficult to name a suitable school. That is the difficulty I am under.

Mr. Dodds: Does not the right hon. Gentleman, who had a smile on his face, realise that what they want is a place to stay? Then the children will go to school. What will he do to get them a place to stay? He should speak to his right hon. Friends next to him with a view to getting these places. Then these children will go to school.

Sir E. Boyle: I think that there is a Question down to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government on this matter today. However strongly we feel on these matters, we must have some regard to how the administrative machinery works. I am bound to say that I think that the problems of school attendance officers faced with this question must be recognised to be very real.

Primary and Secondary Schools (Temporary Teachers)

Mr. Willey: asked the Minister of Education the number of temporary non-qualified teachers in maintained primary and secondary schools; and what was the corresponding figure for 1960.

Sir E. Boyle: Returns from local education authorities show that there were 3,615 temporary teachers in maintained primary and secondary schools on 1st October, 1962. The corresponding figure for 1st October, 1960, was 3,098.

Mr. Willey: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that these are disturbing figures. We recognise the difficulty of providing sufficient teachers,


but none the less it is disturbing that these are pupils awaiting entry into college who are accepting the full responsibility of teachers. Will he consider this as a matter of policy and see what teaching and other responsibility these pupils are being required to undertake?

Sir E. Boyle: Yes. As the hon. Gentleman knows, an increase in temporary teachers was to be expected in 1962 as one of the ways in which the authorities could offset in part the loss of output from the training colleges this year. I am aware of the undertaking that was made, and indeed embodied in Circular 6/59, to review the conditions for the employment of temporary teachers not later than 1963. I intend to carry out such a review.

Oral Answers to Questions — LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Gypsies

Mr. Dodds: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what progress has been made by the Kent County Council since 1st August, 1962, in securing the proposed 10 sites for gypsies and other travellers; what are the prospects of securing other sites during the next six months; and how many are expected to be ready for occupation by next autumn.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. F. V. Corfield): I understand that the Kent County Council has suggested 10 sites and that the district councils concerned have been examining these and possible alternatives. The county council hopes that at least five sites will be available by next summer. Progress in implementing the scheme may, however, be affected if there are local objections to the sites proposed.

Mr. Dodds: Does the Parliamentary Secretary agree that there have been no sites promised yet? Is not this a disgrace, after all the other promises that have been made over past months? Will he beware of the fine words of the Kent County Council which tries to buy time? Is he aware that that council has been offered a site but it has found an objec-

tion to it which, if it is sustained, means that there will never be any sites obtained because there are no perfect sites?

Mr. Corfield: I am not aware of the details of the site to which the hon. Gentleman refers. If he will send them to me, I will look into the matter. I would remind him that I held a meeting of representatives of the county councils concerned in the Home Counties on the 13th of last month and discussed and reviewed the progress made. I am satisfied that the county councils appreciate the urgency of the problem and that they are using their best endeavours to see that sites are provided. The Kent County Council was specifically informed on 28th November by my right hon. Friend of his concern and asked when the necessary sites would be available.

Mr. Dodds: I thank the hon. Gentleman for what he has done. Is he aware that the site I am referring to is in the area of the Mailing Rural District Council, which is anxious to make its contribution in solving this human problem?

Mr. Corfield: I will look into that.

Clear Air Act

Mr. Darling: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs if he will amend the provisions of the Clean Air Act to allow local authorities to supply efficient coke-burning stoves, without any increase in cost and charges, to householders in smoke-controlled areas, so that they can satisfactorily burn the grades of coke which the gas boards supply to merchants as smokeless domestic fuel.

Mr. Corfield: Where supplies of smokeless fuels suitable for open fires are inadequate, my right hon. Friend is prepared to consider using the existing grant provisions of the Act to encourage the use of stoves. He does not consider it necessary to amend the Act for that purpose.

Mr. Darling: May I take it from that reply that the financial provisions will allow coke-burning stoves to be put into these houses and the other grates to be


taken out without any increased cost either to the local authority or to the domestic consumer?

Mr. Corfield: As I understand the position, the proportion of the expense borne by the Exchequer and the local authority remains exactly the same whatever the type of stove. The criterion here is whether or not there are adequate supplies of appropriate solid fuels for burning on open fires.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING

Rent Act

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs if he is aware that mobility of labour is being obstructed by the Rent Act; and if he will amend the Section of the Act which decontrols a house on a change of tenancy.

The Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs (Sir Keith Joseph): No, Sir. A return to control would only make it more difficult for anyone to find a house to rent.

Mr. Allaun: Does not the Minister realise that a man living in a rented house today is as tied to it as though it were a tied cottage and that the Rent Act has destroyed the possibility of choice of house? Does he understand the predicament of an unemployed worker who cannot get a job except by moving with his family to another town, which means leaving a controlled house for a decontrolled house at a rent three or more times as much?

Sir K. Joseph: I do not for a moment deny that we want a great deal more accommodation to let, but the hon. Gentleman does not seem to realise that houses are empty for people to move to only if, when the previous tenants move out or die, the landlord does not immediately sell them. Under the rent restriction Acts, landlords almost invariably sold houses which were vacated. Now, about four out of five houses which are vacated are kept in the market for rent, though, I agree, at higher prices. Therefore, since the Rent Act, there has been relatively more accommodation to rent.

Mr. Allaun: Yes, but on the Minister's own reasoning, a man might have been able to buy a house on mortgage, on the "never-never", with a reasonable mortgage repayment, but now such payments are twice or three times as high as they were, with the result that he is blocked from doing anything in that way.

Sir K. Joseph: No, Sir. The hon. Gentleman always seems to forget that the paying capacity has gone up with the general level of prices in most cases.

Mr. M. Stewart: Does the Minister realise that the paying capacity has not gone up comparatively with the rise of rents since the Rent Act and that the survey of his own Ministry showed that out of a block of houses decontrolled under the Rent Act fewer had become available for rent and more were remaining empty?

Sir K. Joseph: No, the hon. Gentleman is not quoting accurately. I have Professor Donnison's report on this in which he says that, compared with before the Rent Act, four out of five houses now are still available to be rented when they are vacated.

Housing, Slum Clearance and Public Works

Mr. Jager: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs whether, in view of the worsening unemployment situation, he will advise local authorities to expedite their housing, slum clearance and public works programmes; and whether he will give grants and loans for this purpose.

Sir K. Joseph: The 1962 White Paper on Public Investment already provides for additional investment for these purposes, and I am willing to let local authorities with urgent needs build as many houses as they can. There will be no difficulties about loan sanction and the normal housing subsidies will be payable.

Mr. Jeger: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that and for some of the admirable statements he has made in his speeches in the House, but may I ask whether he realises that many local authorities are many years behind in their slum clearance programmes? Will he take really active steps to make them


appreciate the situation and alleviate unemployment in their own areas while, at the same time, carrying out the programmes which he himself has been urging upon them?

Sir K. Joseph: Yes, Sir.

Mr. MacColl: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what is the real reason why local authorities in this position are not building more? It cannot be shortage of labour if there is a lot of unemployment. Is it the high rents which they have to charge? Is it shortage of building materials, or what?

Sir K. Joseph: I am grateful for the way the hon. Gentleman puts his supplementary question. It is wrong to assume that unemployment in pockets necessarily includes unemployment among the skilled craftsmen on which building depends. In each area the scope for building depends always on the same things: management, labour, land, and rent-paying capacity. The emphasis in each area varies. I understand that in the hon. Gentleman's area there is some difficulty about land.

Mr. Shinwell: Has the Minister considered in this context approaching contractors responsible for building these dwellings and also the trade unions, particularly in the building trade, in order to make arrangements, through their cooperation, to organise a skilled and unskilled labour force in order to expedite the building of houses?

Sir K. Joseph: I do not wish in any way to mock what the right hon. Gentleman says, but that is entirely the function of management, both public and private: to organise the skilled and unskilled labour resources available. There must be a drive from the local authority concerned in public enterprise housing, and in many cases local authorities have scope, I believe, for further drive.

Dr. Bray: Having regard to what the Minister said about the shortage of labour in the building trades, is he aware that, following an increased allocation which he made on Tees-side, there were no less than 18 tenders for the work? Is there not still a considerable excess of building capacity in the North-East which is not being used and which shows no signs of being used under his present policy?

Sir K. Joseph: It is encouraging that there is such a capacity for work, because otherwise prices would tend to go very much higher, but I must warn the House that there is still in the country as a whole a shortage of the skilled building craftsmen on which the building programme still largely depends until we have the addition of industrialised building systems to help.

Mr. Jeger: Is the Minister aware that the Goole authority recently admitted that it was eight years behind in its slum clearance programme, while, at the same time, its 50 per cent. increase in unemployment is partly due to a shortage of building contracts? Will he intervene in this particular instance?

Sir K. Joseph: We have agreed to Goole building 71 houses this year, but the council has not even got a tender in for that number yet.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE

British Oxygen Company (Price and Contract Policy)

Mr. Jay: asked the President of the Board of Trade what consultations he had with the Monopolies Commission before deciding to release the British Oxygen Company from obligations as to its price and contract policy imposed as a result of recommendations by the Commission.

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. F. J. Erroll): None, Sir. The Commission's recommendations were based on inquiries made more than six years ago. I am not authorised under the 1948 Act to ask the Commission for advice now about changes which have taken place since the completion of its Report unless I make a new reference under that Act.

Mr. Jay: Is the President of the Board of Trade aware that, since he asked the British Oxygen Company for these assurances, its share of the market has fallen only from 98 per cent. to 95 per cent.? If the right hon. Gentleman really thinks that that is a good reason for releasing the company from its obligations, is not he making a mockery of his attitude to monopolies in this country?

Mr. Erroll: Not at all. The changes which I announced by means of an Answer to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) show that no less than 80 per cent. of British Oxygen's customers are still protected by the undertakings previously given.

Mr. Webster: At a time when, by the Transport Act, the House has given the right to make free charging arrangements and privacy of charging to nationalised industries, is it not appropriate that the same facility should be given to private enterprise?

Mr. Erroll: Even more than that, I say to my hon. Friend that what I have been able to announce demonstrates the efficacy of the Monopolies Commission's work in this respect because, after the introduction of the undertakings which were adhered to by the British Oxygen Company, effective competition has emerged, and we can now see the effective degree of competitive enterprise in a field which was formerly monopolistic.

Mr. Jay: Does the right hon. Gentleman really say that a company which controls 95 per cent. of the market ought to be free to charge what prices it likes?

Mr. Erroll: The right hon. Gentleman, whose intelligence I appreciate, fails altogether to realise that the release from the undertakings applies only to the large consumers taking over 12,000 cubic feet per annum. Eighty per cent. of British Oxygen's customers are still protected by the undertakings to which the company still adheres. Competition now is effective in regard to the large customers, and that is where relaxation is most appropriate.

Oral Answers to Questions — EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY

Mr. Pentland: asked the Prime Minister how many communications he has received calling his attention to the political and constitutional issues involved for the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth in the event of Her Majesty's Government's application for full membership of the Common Market being accepted by the countries of the European Economic Community; and what replies he has sent.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan): I have received numerous letters on the wide-ranging matters referred to by the hon. Member. My replies have dealt with the particular points raised by my correspondents.

Mr. Pentland: Will the Prime Minister agree that the political and constitutional issues involved in our joining the Common Market are giving rise to considerable concern and speculation in the country? In view of the fact that the right hon. Gentleman himself has already indicated in his pamphlet on the Common Market that a loss of sovereignty by Britain would be consistent with our joining, will he now explain to the House to what extent he expects the loss of sovereignty to go, how much there will be and how far-reaching? Is it his intention to raise these issues with President de Gaulle in the forthcoming talks he is to have with him?

The Prime Minister: We have discussed this matter in debate and otherwise. It is very difficult to answer on these matters in question and answer. Of course, any economic treaty, or any other treaty, involves pro tanto some transfer of sovereignty under its terms.

Mr. Pentland: But are not the people of this country still in doubt about exactly what the Prime Minister means when he says that this will mean for Britain a loss of sovereignty and, indeed, will mean constitutional changes in British law and the machinery of Government? The British people have still no idea at all of what the extent will be.

The Prime Minister: There have been very wide-ranging debates on this issue in which we have all tried to take part. I should have thought that the best course was to let the Brussels negotiations continue on the economic aspect, it then being for Parliament to see where we stand.

Mr. Gaitskell: Does the Prime Minister realise that this cannot be regarded as just another treaty which involves a certain amount of limitation on what we do, because it involves setting up institutions where we should be subject to majority decisions, so far as we can make out, and it involves by-passing Parliament? Is it not time that we had a clearer statement from the Government about it?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. I think that by far the most practical thing is to continue the negotiations. If they are brought to a successful conclusion, then will be the time for Parliament to have a debate on whether or not it is prepared to accept the consequences.

Mr. Grimond: Is not the Prime Minister aware that we have suffered already a great deal from the Government's failure to make known to the country their view on the economic implications of the Common Market? Will he now consider making rather more clear the Government's view of the political implications because, unless some political changes are brought about in Europe, even those of us who support Britain's entry may feel that it may not bring about a very satisfactory situation?

The Prime Minister: All these matters have been subject, I think, to more public discussion in the Press, on the platform and elsewhere than almost any other subject, and rightly so. However, it is very difficult in question and answer to deal with these matters.

Mr. Zilliacus: asked the Prime Minister whether he will instruct the Minister of Agriculture and the Lord Privy Seal to prepare a new statement of Great Britain's objections to the agricultural policy of the Six, so as to require not only a transition period in the interests of British farmers, but also a revision of the European Economic Community agricultural policy, in the light of the adverse criticism of it by the Agricultural Committee of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and by the United States Government.

The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friends the Minister of Agriculture and the Lord Privy Seal are already taking full account in the negotiations of the need to secure satisfactory agricultural arrangements not only in the transitional period but also in the longer term.

Mr. Zilliacus: Will the Prime Minister kindly make clear whether this means that now that the Agricultural Committee of the G.A.T.T. and the United States Secretary of State for Agriculture have protested against the present policy of the Six, the Government will join in this protest and demand a change in the policy of the Six themselves as contrasted

with merely arguing about a transition period?

The Prime Minister: I do not think on the whole that the method of trying to conduct these negotiations by continual public statements about them is likely to be successful. We have all these matters in mind in the negotiations which are being conducted.

Mr. Gower: With reference to this and an earlier Question, is it not strange that those who have preached for so long the brotherhood of man are so frightened of any commitment beyond the Straits of Dover?

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT

Mr. Prentice: asked the Prime Minister if he will appoint a special committee of Ministers to deal with the problem of rising unemployment.

The Prime Minister: This matter always requires regular and frequent consultation between the Ministers concerned. The arrangements which are in force naturally provide for this.

Mr. Prentice: Will the Prime Minister comment on the reports in yesterday's newspapers that the Cabinet has now decided that no special extra measures are needed to deal with the current level of unemployment? Does not he think that this is a terribly complacent view of the present unemployment figures which are the highest for 22 years? How high have they to go before the right hon. Gentleman does anything?

The Prime Minister: I do not know about reports of Cabinet discussions. I have not read the one to which the hon. Gentleman refers. A very large number of measures have been taken by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and they are continually under review. Also, considerable changes in regard to what one might call the re-expansion of the economy have taken place in the past few months.

Mr. Gaitskell: In that case, may we expect a further statement from the Government before Christmas in order to do something to alleviate the very considerable anxiety existing in all quarters of the House and the country on this matter?

The Prime Minister: As I understand the position, we are hoping, both of us, to arrange for a debate on, I think, the 17th of this month. That would seem to be a more suitable moment for a discussion of this matter than by question and answer.

Mr. R. W. Elliott: Will my right hon. Friend agree that a solution to unemployment in such areas as the north-east of England depends on investment? Is he aware that the recent announcement on public investment in that area was very well received, and that any further announcement of public investment would also be very well received? Is he aware that there has been in that area a great deal of private investment in recent years and that much Male is hoped for? Is he aware that constant suggestions about "two nations" and the gloom engendered by such phrases as "twilight areas" do not encourage investment?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. I feel that this matter has to be dealt with, as I said the other day, from various aspects—the general state of the economy and particular privileges for particular areas. I agree that in the realm of both private and public investment we must seek a solution.

Oral Answers to Questions — CABINET DISCUSSIONS AND DOCUMENTS

Mr. Shinwell: asked the Prime Minister whether his consent was given to Lord Avon to enable him to include in It's memoirs reference to Cabinet discussions and documents; and whether similar facilities will be made available to other authors with qualifications as historians, so that the public can be informed on events of historical importance.

The Prime Minister: With my agreement Lord Avon was given permission to include in his personal memoirs certain references to Cabinet discussions and documents.

Mr. Shinwell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many of the statements referring to Cabinet documents and discussions are far from complete, and the result is that it leaves the full truth about these matters undisclosed? Would it not be wiser, instead of allowing

special privileges to certain ex-Cabinet Ministers and not to all of them, to allow official historians to disclose all, apart from matters relating to security?

The Prime Minister: Much has already been written in other memoirs and other biographies about the events of these pre-war years. I did not consider that Lord Avon could fairly be denied reasonable freedom to present his own account of events in which he played so large a part.

Dame Irene Ward: In view of the fact that life has speeded up, would it not be a good idea for historians' access to papers to be allowed to be speeded up also?

The Prime Minister: This is a matter which has been under consideration by different Governments. There has been a certain relaxation in the war period and even the pre-war period, of which we all know. On the whole, I think the present rule a wise one. I ask hon. Members to consider carefully what would be the result of the opposite rule. The Ministers would begin to write minutes, not so much to deal with the occasions and problems they had to deal with, but with a view to the record.

Mr. Shinwell: If the right hon. Gentleman accepts responsibility for permitting Lord Avon to disclose certain matters relating to Cabinet documents and discussions, what justification is there in his mind, or in logic, for giving approval to one ex-Cabinet Minister and denying it to others?

The Prime Minister: I do not know of any case that has been refused, but if the right hon. Member will let me know of one I will try to deal with it.

Mr. Bellenger: Is the Prime Minister of the opinion that, even if the facilities are accorded to ex-Cabinet Ministers or to historians with qualifications, the public can be adequately informed of events of historical importance?

The Prime Minister: Both in the first war and in the second there has been a certain relaxation which we accept. It was done in the years immediately after the war and certain points of view in biographies and autobiographies have


been written about those years, but I think that in general the rule now in force is a wise one.

Oral Answers to Questions — MR. KHRUSHCHEV (LETTER)

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Prime Minister whether he has now received a reply from Mr. Khrushchev to his letter of 28th October.

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Henderson: Is the Prime Minister going to publish the reply? If so, will he tell us now whether Mr. Khrushchev endorsed his own suggestion that following the settlement of the Cuban problem the way is now open to a general arrangement on armaments, and especially an earlier nuclear test ban treaty?

The Prime Minister: As this message was not transmitted over the radio but given to me by private letter, I did not think it right for me to publish it. It was a long letter and I was glad to get it, but I do not intend to go into detail over this matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNITED STATES BASE SCULTHORPE (INCIDENT)

Mr. Driberg: asked the Prime Minister what information he has received, in accordance with the Anglo-American agreement governing the control of nuclear weapons kept at United States Air Force bases in the United Kindom, about the incident at a base in Norfolk in 1958, when a mentally deranged master sergeant threatened to explode at atom bomb; if he is satisfied that United States personnel who hold positions of responsibility regarding control of nuclear or atomic weapons at United States bases in the United Kingdom are medically examined as suitable in all respects for such responsibility; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. M. Foot: asked the Prime Minister whether, following the incident when an American airman ran amok at the United States Air Force base at Sculthorpe, Norfolk, in 1958, he had consultations with the United States President about the taking of fresh precautions at such bases.

The Prime Minister: The facts were given to the House at the time by the then Secretary of State for Air. The American Serviceman referred to, locked himself in a shed for eight hours. The anxiety was not that he might explode at atomic bomb—there were none there—but that he might do something foolish with a pistol. I did not think it necessary to consult the President of the United States about this. [Laughter.]

Mr. Driberg: Although this seems to hon. Members opposite to be extremely frivolous and unimportant, is the Prime Minister aware that widespread destruction could have been caused, since it has now been admitted that, whether it was an atomic bomb or not, it was an atomic or nuclear device that this master sergeant threatened to destroy? That has now been admitted by the United States authorities, as reported. Can the Prime Minister say whether there was any consultation at the time with Her Majesty's Government before false information was given to the Press?

The Prime Minister: This incident was four years ago. This sergeant, unfortunately suffering from some mental delusions, shut himself up in a shed and threatened to kill himself with a ·45 revolver. It is quite true that there was some explosive in the building and it is just conceivable that he might have caused it to explode had he carried out his threat, but his threat was to kill himself, not to shoot the explosive. There was no fissionable material in the building and no possibility of a nuclear explosion of any kind.

Mr. M. Foot: Is the Prime Minister aware that the information he has just given the House and the information that was given to the House four years ago by the Minister involved is contradicted in almost every particular by statements which have appeared on the authority of the United States authorities in the last few days? Therefore, will he give an undertaking, before he lands himself into further absurdities over this matter, to reconsider the whole question and to give a truthful statement to the House of Commons?

The Prime Minister: I have already given a statement which has been prepared for me, which I am satisfied is


correct and a true and full account of what was said four years ago and what was said by the American authorities recently.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRESIDENT KENNEDY AND PRESIDENT DE GAULLE (PRIME MINISTER'S MEETINGS)

Mr. M. Foot: asked the Prime Minister whether, at his forthcoming meeting with President Kennedy, he will seek a renewal of the President's pledges concerning consultation with the British Government about the use of nuclear weapons.

Mr. Warbey: asked the Prime Minister (1) whether, during his forthcoming meeting with President Kennedy, he will propose a joint Anglo-American initiative in the United Nations to ensure that preparations for aggression or external subversion are excluded from all territories bordering the Caribbean area under a system of United Nations verification;
(2) if he is aware that the French proposals for co-operation with Germany in the development of an independent nuclear deterrent are in breach of the undertaking given by those countries to the United Kingdom in the revised Brussels Treaty; and if he will draw the attention of President de Gaulle to this in their forthcoming discussions.

The Prime Minister: With permission, I will answer this Question and Questions Nos. Q11 and Q13 together.
I would refer hon. Members to the replies which I gave on 29th November to Questions about my forthcoming discussions with President de Gaulle and President Kennedy.

Mr. Foot: Does the Prime Minister recall that a few days after the Cuba crisis he assured the House that he had an understanding with the United States President that he would be consulted at any time if there was any question of nuclear weapons being used? Can he say whether he was consulted during the crisis of Cuba week? Has the Prime Minister taken into account the statements made in the last few days, on the authority of such an eminent American journalist as Mr. Walter Lippman.

suggesting that the President of the United States deliberately decided not to consult the British Government, not for the reasons given to the House by the Prime Minister, but for quite other reasons altogether?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. I am glad of the opportunity of stating once again that the President of the United States has with me, and would have, I trust, with any of my successors, the same understanding as his predecessor President Eisenhower had with me. I should like to say categorically that he fulfilled that obligation with the closest co-operation at every point.

Mr. Warbey: May I submit a point of order before putting a supplementary question to the Prime Minister? I understood him to say that he was dealing with Questions Nos. 9, 11 and 13. My Questions No. 11 and No. 13 deal with entirely different subjects. Question No. 11 is concerned with the Prime Minister's discussions with President Kennedy and Question No. 13 deals with his discussions with President de Gaulle. I am therefore not prepared to accept a single Answer to both those Questions.

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order, I am afraid. I understand the point the hon. Member is making, but it is not a point of order because I have no power to direct the Answer of the Minister in any particular way nor the way in which he should make it. In regard to the words "with permission" by which these groupings are prefaced, my predecessors have ruled that they are a mere courtesy expression, which does not indicate that we have power to refuse.

Mr. Warbey: Further to that point of order. I have already given notice to the Table that I should defer Question No. 13 to next week if it is not reached today. Therefore, I prefer that the Answer to Question No. 13 should be deferred until next week. Is the Prime Minister prepared to accept that?

Mr. Speaker: I have great sympathy with the hon. Member, but I am afraid that under our practice and previous Rulings of my predecessors it cannot be done if the Question is grouped with other Questions for answer.

Mr. Warbey: In that case, may I appeal to the Prime Minister to answer only Question No. 11 and not Question No. 13?

The Prime Minister: I am quite prepared to do whatever the hon. Member wishes. I thought it would be convenient to group these Questions together, but if he prefers to put the Question down for next Tuesday, I shall be pleased to answer it then.

Mr. Warbey: I thank the Prime Minister for that because it saves me putting two supplementary questions to him now. I therefore now ask the Prime Minister, in reference to the suggestion about the Caribbean area, whether he will take account that while the United States is quite rightly asking for verification of the fact that there are no offensive weapons left in Cuba, the Cuban Government are equally entitled to be assured that there shall be verification that no offensive preparations for invasion are being made in Florida, Guatemala, Honduras or Puerto Rico? Would it not be reasonable to propose that an agreement on the pacification of this area with United Nations inspection and safeguards Should be put on a reciprocal basis?

The Prime Minister: As I understand the diplomatic negotiations are still continuing with a view to bringing the Cuban affair to an end between the Governments concerned, I think it would be unwise for me to comment at this moment.

Mr. Driberg: If the Prime Minister should meet the President before Question No. 15 is reached—I have already had to defer that Question three times—would he be good enough to raise with the President the particular point contained in that Question, which I believe to be a new one in our exchanges in this House?

Mr. Speaker: It would be rather difficult to bring that within the rules of order.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Gaitskell: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he will announce the business of the House for next week?

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Iain Macleod): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY, 10TH DECEMBER and TUESDAY, 11TH DECEMBER—Second Reading of the London Government Bill, and Committee stage of the Money Resolution.
At the end of the proceedings on the Bill on Monday, consideration of the Motion on the International Coffee Organisation (Immunities and Privileges) Order, and on Tuesday, the Motions on the Police Pensions Regulations, and Summer Time.
WEDNESDAY, 12TH DECEMBER—Consideration of private Members' Motions until seven o'clock.
Second Reading of the County Courts (Jurisdiction) Bill.
Remaining stages of the Foreign Compensation Bill, of the Towyn Trewan Common Bill, and of the Electricity (Borrowing Powers) (Scotland) Bill, which, if not obtained, will be put down for
THURSDAY, 13TH DECEMBER, when the business will be the Second Reading of the Local Government (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Bill, and Committee stage of the Money Resolution.
And, at seven o'clock, a debate on the Common Market, on the Motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Consideration of the Motion on the British Transport Reorganisation (Compensation to Employees) Regulations.
FRIDAY, 14TH DECEMBER—Consideration of private Members' Motions.
MONDAY, 17TH DECEMBER—The proposed business will be: Supply [3rd Allotted Day]: Motion to move Mr. Speaker out of the Chair, when a debate will arise on an Opposition Amendment relating to Unemployment.
Consideration of the Motion on the Anti-Dumping Duty (No. 2) Order.
The House will wish to know that, subject to the progress of business, it is intended to propose that we should rise for the Christmas Adjournment on Friday, 21st December, until Tuesday, 22nd January.

Mr. A. Lewis: In view of the fact that the London Government Bill vitally affects the constituencies of every hon. member in Middlesex, Surrey, London and parts of Essex, may I ask the Minister whether he thinks that a two-day debate is adequate? There are many hon. Members on both sides of the House who wish to take part in that debate. If we have four Front Bench speakers, two from each side on each day, there will be insufficient time for all those other hon. Members who wish to take part in the debate. Cannot the right hon. Gentleman give another day to the subject, shortening our Christmas holiday, if need be, by one day?

Mr. Macleod: It is a most important Bill, perhaps the most important and probably the most controversial of the domestic Bills of this Session. It is exactly for that reason that we have put down two days. I should not have thought it right to extend that period.

Mr. M. Stewart: In view of what the Leader of the House has just said about the nature of the Bill, does he not agree that the Government should give favourable consideration to the proposal that the Committee stage be taken on the Floor of the House?

Mr. Macleod: No, Sir. I have considered that matter very carefully indeed, as well as the various other proposals which have been made. I have a suggestion which I think may help. After considering the representations which have been made, and realising that Clause 1 and the First Schedule are perhaps the matters of greatest interest to hon. Members whose constituencies are affected, the Government propose to put down a Motion today that Clause I and the First Schedule be taken on the floor of the House.

Dame Irene Ward: In view of the fact that we were unable to discuss Service pensions yesterday, will my right hon. Friend be able to give us time to do so before the House rises for the Christmas Adjournment?

Mr. Macleod: Yes. I hope to be able to do that during the last three days of business, which I have not yet announced.

Mr. Wigg: The right hon. Gentleman will have noticed that one of the consequences of the break-down in the Government's manpower policy for the Ser-

vices is that there are 120 applications in one constituency from men who propose to stand as candidates. He will have noticed that inspired stories have appeared in the Press to the effect that the Government intend to introduce legislation on the subject. Will he tell us when, or whether, it is intended to take it before Christmas?

Mr. Macleod: I can tell the House that the Minister of Defence proposes to make a statement to the House on this important matter before we rise for Christmas.

Mr. Robert Cooke: Will the Leader of the House tell us when we may expect the White Paper on Broadcasting and Television?

Mr. Macleod: Before we rise for the Recess. I think that in the first day or so of the week after next.

Mr. Driberg: Further to the question about the London Government Bill, in view of what has been said by the right hon. Gentleman himself and some of my hon. Friends, would he at least consider suspending the rule for one hour on the first of the two days, if there are a very large number of hon. Members on both sides trying to speak in the debate?

Mr. Macleod: I am always prepared to consider that if there is a demand for it. I have expressed an opinion previously that a suspension of one hour is, in many cases, the least satisfactory form of debate. But I am prepared to consider that if there is a widespread demand.

Mr. Stewart: While I appreciate what the right hon. Gentleman said about the Committee stage of the Bill, will he consider, for the rest of the Bill, tabling a Motion which would have the effect of enlarging the Committee from the ordinary figure of a maximum of 50 to, say, 70 or 80?

Mr. Macleod: I am not sure that that would be very suitable. If we were to do it on the basis of including every hon. Member in the whole area whose constituency is affected and, at the same time, preserve the ordinary balance of the parties in the House, the total of the Committee would be about 175. Clearly, that is impracticable. It is precisely for this reason that I put forward


the suggestion which, as far as it goes, I gather would be welcomed by the hon. Member, although he would like it to go a great deal further—that we should take Clause 1 and the First Schedule on the Floor of the House.

Mr. Lagden: Will the Leader of the House kindly tell us when we may look forward to discussing the Royal Commission on the Police, having regard to the fact that for such a very long time so many responsible people have sheltered behind the fact that the Royal Commission was sitting? Now that we have at last had the benefit of their advice, would it not be as well to let the House of Commons dicsuss it?

Mr. Macleod: As my hon. Friend has seen, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has announced action in this matter. It is proceeding. I know that he is anxious to debate this matter. We will consider the position in the new year.

Mr. Gaitskell: Will the Leader of the House seriously consider the proposal of my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) about the size of the Committee? Is he aware that as far as we are concerned we think that the whole of the London Government Bill should be taken on the Floor of the House? While we appreciate what the right hon. Gentleman intends to do in moving a Motion to secure that Clause 1 and the First Schedule are taken on the Floor of the House, we are also concerned about the rest of the Bill. It would at least go some way to meet us if he enlarged the Committee, as has been proposed.

Mr. Macleod: I will consider that, as long as it is understood to be entirely without commitment.

Mr. Fernyhough: May I refer to the business for Monday week? The Leader of the House knows that this is a problem which is agitating the country more than any other single problem at the moment. Many hon. Members will want to take part in the debate. Could he give more time than a single day for discussing what is the biggest social problem now confronting the nation?

Mr. Macleod: That is an Opposition day, and the Opposition Amendment Which we shall discuss has not yet been

tabled. I think that we had better see what it is and then decide.

Mr. Iremonger: Will my right hon. Friend look at the HANSARD report of the Committee stage debate on the Local Government Act in 1957–58 and consider whether, in view of what happened on that occasion, it might not be desirable, in the interests of Government supporters and those who are interested in the later stages of the Bill, that la timetable fairly allocating time for various Clauses were decided upon early in the proceedings?

Mr. Lubbock: Has the Leader of the House had consultations with the Minister of Aviation on the subject of the supersonic airliner, as that Minister promised on 29th November?

Mr. Macleod: I cannot give any undertaking about finding time before Christmas for such a debate, but I think that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin) has put down this subject for the Adjournment.

Mr. Prentice: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider arranging a debate before the Recess, or fairly soon afterwards, on the White Paper, published yesterday, on industrial training? Is he aware that many hon. Members on this side of the House are glad to see that a few of our ideas [have belatedly been accepted, that we have much more advice to give, and that we should like a debate on this subject fairly soon?

Mr. Macleod: It could not be before Christmas. It is an important White Paper, which the House will wish to study.

Mr. Bellenger: Does the Leader of the House consider that from 7.0 p.m. on Thursday until the end of the proceedings is sufficient to enable those large number of backbenchers who want to take part in the debate on the Common Market to do so?

Mr. Macleod: We have had some discussion on these matters. This is, in fact, almost the only day on which the Lord Privy Seal will be in this country at all during the period which we are covering. Perhaps I should tell the House what is proposed. If the House is agreeable, at 7.0 p.m., the Lord Privy Seal would make a short statement on


the progress of the negotiations up to that point and would then listen to the debate, including, I hope, a number of very short speeches, and would make a reply to the debate before 10.0 p.m.

Mr. Warbey: Will the right hon. Gentleman think again about the Common Market debate? Now that the negotiations have reached a point at which all the cards are on the table, and when we have to make up our minds whether to go on with the wedding or break off the engagement, is it not rather ridiculous that the House of Commons should be confined to a three-hour debate?

Mr. Macleod: With respect, I do not think so. We had a number of debates on the subject, and, quite clearly, we shall have more. The object of this debate was that the Lord Privy Seal would be able to make a statement and then, as the Motion was on the Adjournment of the House, speeches could go on until 10 p.m. My right hon. Friend would reply at the end of the debate.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Will the right hon. Gentleman find an early day for the House to deal with my Motion asking that references to the Select Committee on Procedure should include an item altering the rules of the House which at present enable private Members to defeat a Private Member's Bill simply by saying "I object", without even having read the Bill? Will he find an opportunity for an early discussion on that? It is important, in view of the large number of Private Members' Bills which are pending.

[That this House takes note of the power which at present enables one hon. Member to frustrate or postpone or defeat another Private Member's Bill by simply indicating on Second Reading his objection without giving reasons and without having read the Bill, and would welcome the reference of this matter to a Select Committee on Procedure for their consideration.]

Mr. Macleod: The Select Committee on Procedure is at present considering the very important matter of the sub judice rule. When it has considered its examination of that, it will consider a programme of future work, and among

the applications for a place in that will be the hon. and learned Member's suggestion.

Mr. Zilliacus: Will not the Leader of the House think again about the time allotted for the Common Market debate? Will he not contemplate suspending the rule for one hour, so that we could at least talk until 11 p.m.?

Mr. Macleod: I will consider that if representations are made, but this is clearly one in a series of debates which we have had and will have on this subject.

Mr. Rankin: In view of the question of the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock), may I ask him to subscribe his name to my request for time on the Christmas Adjournment to discuss the supersonic airliner?

Mr. Speaker: Order. That request is out of order.

Mr. Macleod: It may be out of order, but—

Mr. Speaker: The whole thing is hopelessly out of order. We shall have difficulty with business questions unless hon. Members treat the subject properly.

Mr. Rankin: I said that, Mr. Speaker, merely because sometimes a number of hon. Members have made application for the Adjournment on these occasions.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not regard anything that the hon. Member for Glasgow. Govan (Mr. Rankin) has been doing in the last few moments as in order at all. Mrs. Castle.

Mr. Rankin: On a point of order. Ms. Speaker, you called me and I merely made a supplementary remark—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have the interests of other right hon. and hon. Members to consider. I called the hon. Member for Govan in the hope that he intended to ask a question of the Leader of the House. He did not do so, and what followed on his part was wholly out of order.

Mrs. Castle: May I add my plea to that made by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Zilliacus) that the Leader of the House


should give us until eleven o'clock on the Common Market debate? Although it is true that we have had a number of debates on this subject, some of us have tried in vain to speak in even one of those debates, and will probably face the same frustration again next week unless the right hon. Gentleman agrees to extend the time.

Mr. Macleod: I have said that I would consider the representations made.

Mr. Reynolds: In considering the provision of time for the London Government Bill, will the Leader of the House bear in mind that the Bills setting up the London County Council and the Metropolitan boroughs were, in their time, both discussed in Committee on the Floor of the House, and that this Bill is equally important? Will he also look at my proposal to give the same sort of facilities in this kind of matter to hon. Members representing 8½ million people in the Greater London area as are granted year in and year out to hon. Members representing a much smaller number of people in Scotland and Wales?

Mr. Macleod: I will consider that but, of course, as the hon. Gentleman knows, seventy or eighty years ago, the time to which he refers, a great deal more time was available, because our proceedings were much more leisurely than they are now.

Mr. A. Lewis: While appreciating what the right hon. Gentleman says about the London Government Bill, may I ask him to explain the necessity to close the debate early on the Monday, the first day of the debate? Those

hon. Members not interested, because their constituencies are not affected, need not come from the North on that day, but there are those who are interested, and I am told that my hon, Friends will be quite prepared to keep the debate going all night, and would have no difficulty at all in doing so. There must be some hon. Members opposite who would be willing and give their views on the first night. There cannot be a vote on the Monday night, so why finish the debate early? Acceptance of my proposal would give to every hon. Member who wanted it the chance to take part in the debate.

Mr. Macleod: I think that I have covered that point. I have undertaken to take into account the points made by the hon. Member and by the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. F. M. Bennett: Can my right hon. Friend say whether we shall soon have an opportunity to hear a statement from the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations about the Sino-Indian situation which, if followed by a debate, would at least give opportunity to those hon. Members opposite below the Gangway the opportunity to vent their attacks on Communist aggression, for which they have been waiting so patiently?

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (SUPPLY)

Ordered,
That this day Business other than the Business of Supply may be taken before Ten o'clock.—[Mr. Iain Macleod.]

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

[2ND ALLOTTED DAY]

Order for Committee read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair.—[Mr. Redmayne.]

Orders of the Day — COMMITTEE OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS (REPORTS)

3.53 p.m.

Mr. John Arbuthnot: I beg to move, to leave out from "That" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
this House takes note of the First, Second and Third Reports from the Committee of Public Accounts in the last Session of Parliament, and of the Special Report from the Committee of Public Accounts.
Until three years ago, the Public Accounts Committee and the Estimates Committee used to toil and produce their Reports. That was the end of the matter, unless a diligent newspaper brought out the more lively extracts from what we had to say. The House then decided that these Reports should be debated, and an opportunity given to those who were members of the Committees to throw further light on what we had been doing, and why, and to those who were not members of the Committees to have their say, and to put their questions on our work.
On the two previous occasions when the Reports of the Public Accounts Committee have been discussed, the necessary Amendment has been proposed by the Chairman of the Committee, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson). This year, however, at his instigation, it was decided to put someone else in to hat. In part, this is because the right hon. Gentleman has been in Israel. He was hoping to be able to be back in time to listen to this debate, and because he is not we must commiserate with him, for at this very moment he is probably flying round and round over London. I should like to say, on behalf of the members of the Committee on both sides of the House, how much we appreciate the

leadership that the right hon. Gentleman has given us. It has been strictly non-party, as is in the best traditions of the Committee.
It is worth emphasising that the control of expenditure falls into two parts. First, we have the control over commitments. That is not the concern of the Public Accounts Committee, but the Committee is concerned with the second form of control, making sure that the nation is getting value for money, and with seeing that payments are correctly made and waste eliminated. The Committee has been concerning itself with this for over a hundred years.
A further reason why I, a Government supporter, am moving this Amendment rather than the Committee's Chairman, a member of the Opposition, is to emphasise the fact that the functions and duties of the Committee are common ground between the parties. We are nonparty, and objective in our approach to the problems we have to consider. It follows from our Constitution that the Committee's Reports are bound to be critical. We are a fault-finding body. The Committee has neither the time nor the duty to tell any success stories, and that should be remembered if we are to keep a proper sense of proportion in considering the Reports. It should also be remembered that the Public Accounts Committee's scrutiny is comprehensive. We review the whole of Government expenditure—about £7,000 million of voted moneys, plus the Post Office, the National Insurance funds and other non-voted accounts.
It is important to bear in mind that all these accounts have been examined, and certified as correct. In other words, this money has been verified as having been spent in accordance with Parliament's wishes, and it is only in respect of a very small fraction of the total that the Committee finds evidence of weakness of system or lack of control. Our experience is that, taken as a whole, the system is sound and unrivalled in its integrity. The Committee's subject matter consists of past events. Its facts are the ways in which money has been spent and the mistakes that have been made. That limits, but does not lessen, the value of its work.
The accounting processes work in two ways. In the first place, there is the negative effect. Departments are more likely to be soundly organised for spending their money correctly and economically if the permanent head of the Department has to stand up once a year to face criticism of his Department's lapses. But there is also the positive side to our work. Public spending is a continuous process. While, for example, the criticisms in the Reports now under consideration refer to transactions in a particular year, by far the greater part of those transactions relate to expenditure on services continuing from year to year. If defects in last year's system are identified and corrected, Parliament and the nation may expect to reap an economy dividend this year, and in future years.
The Public Accounts Committee, unlike other bodies, has three peculiar advantages. In the first place, we have the evidence of accounting officers, who are the permanent heads of their Departments and personally responsible for the correctness of their accounts.
Then we enjoy the services of the Comptroller and Auditor General, and I should like to say how much all the members of the Committee—and I know, all Members of the House—value these services, and regard them as being of inestimable value. Not only does the Comptroller concentrate our attention on those aspects that he thinks will best repay our further scrutiny, but he is also prepared to have his investigators probe into any part of Government spending about which individual members of the Committee may feel in doubt.

Mr. T. L. Iremonger: Can my hon. Friend tell us what is the standing of the Comptroller and Auditor General? To whom he is answerable and by whom he is appointed?

Mr. Arbuthnot: That does not quite merge into the flow of my speech, but the Comptroller and Auditor General is appointed by and answerable to Parliament—as the hon. Gentleman will learn if he does his homework.
What occurs to me is that the Comptroller's services are so prized, and with every justification, that it is suggested in some quarters that an officer with similar powers should be placed at the

disposal of back-bench Members who feel that they have received a brush off "from the Establishment on constituency cases. It is not for me to express a view on the merits of such a proposal, but it does at least reflect the high esteem in which the Comptroller and Auditor General and his staff are held.
The third advantage that pertains to the Public Accounts Committee is its special relationship with the Treasury, both as a witness in P.A.C. hearings and as a co-ordinator of action by the Executive on P.A.C. recommendations. It is right that it should be a Treasury Minister who replies to this debate, and I am particularly glad that my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary is to reply this evening to the various questions that may arise. In my view, Parliament would be making a great mistake if it were ever to weaken that special relationship with the Treasury that has been built up over the years.
In this connection, I see that in its last annual report the Post Office rather gloried in the fact that this is the first year that it has been free from certain Treasury controls. I trust that that does not forecast a suggestion that the Post Office should escape the Treasury wing in its replies to P.A.C. criticisms. The Treasury is responsible for answering Committee criticism in connection with many non-voted accounts—a year ago, we examined the Independent Television Authority—and for Parliament to put any Department outside the scope of the Treasury Minute would seriously weaken the system of control that has been proved to work so well in practice, and I trust that any such move on the part of the Post Office would be resisted strongly by members of the Committee, and by Parliament itself.
The Public Accounts Committee eschews policies; we concentrate on administration. Our efficiency relies on the preservation of the well-tried system of working with the Executive at official level. The views of the Executive on the Committee's criticisms are transmitted each year to the P.A.C. by a Treasury Minute, and we have this year's Treasury Minute now before us in the Special Report of the Committee in this Session. I must remark, in passing, that I have


never seen a Treasury Minute which has been so full of agreement with the various comments which the Public Accounts Committee had to make.
In due course, the P.A.C. will consider this document, together with evidence upon it, as it thinks fit, from the Treasury and from other Departments. The value and importance of receiving this statement of the views of the Executive in a document presented by the central, and in so many respects the controlling, Department in our financial system cannot be too strongly emphasised.
I now turn to some of the detailed matters in the Report of the P.A.C. for the Session 1961–62. The theme running through the Report is the need for full information if Departments are to control the heavy expenditure which is not subject to the overall test of competitive tender. I will take one or two examples which bring this out.
The first is to be found in paragraphs 47 to 53 of our Report, in which we discuss research and development. We thought that there had been considerable improvements in the methods of controlling the heavy expenditure over the several years during which successive Committees have examined the cases coming before them. We still felt that there was room for the introduction of a greater measure of competition in the matter of design and a greater degree of precision in both the dates and the costs of development contracts placed under agreed technical programmes. The admitted defects in cost control of Biue Streak, for example, mentioned in paragraphs 58 to 61, further illustrate the need for the use of improved methods.
Another example comes from the control of sub-contract prices. Our examination left us in no doubt about whether the checks were adequate, and, in particular, whether the Ministry of Aviation had enough precise information from the scale of its investigations. This wide field of sub-contracts, with its possibility of excessive prices, obviously shows the need for a systematic survey, and we look for an improvement another year in the Ministry of Aviation's control in that respect.
In paragraphs 70 to 83, concerned with certain agricultural subsidies, the

Committee found evidence that lack of information in the Ministry of Agriculture, the result of inadequate records and insufficient checking, had given rise to overpayments. In the case of the lime subsidy, this lack of information resulted in failure over a long period to detect a fraud. Other illustrations of the need for more and better information are to be found in the overhead costs of the Air Ministry's work services and the cost estimating by ordnance factories.
All these cases must present difficulties—we must always realise that—and the cost of getting information or making checks must be weighed against the risk of loss and wasteful expenditure if the steps are not taken. But the Public Account Committee's inquiries show that there is room for much more vigilance.
In paragraphs 9 to 11 we deal with the latest position with regard to the firm of Bailey (Malta) Limited, the firm which bombards Members of Parliament with glossy brochures giving selective quotations which it thinks will show the firm in a favourable light. Strong criticism of this firm's activities was made in the debate on the Committee's Report last year. The House will recollect that the firm had misappropriated public funds and had used them for purposes which would not have been approved by the Colonial Office, had the Colonial Office known about them. Last year we reported that as a result of the investigations by Sir Richard Yeabsley, such action as could be taken was taken to correct the position. Three Government-nominated directors, including Sir Richard Yeabsley himself, were appointed to the board.
Last April, these three Government-sponsored directors resigned, and it is not a very great step to assume that they were not satisfied with the way in which the company's affairs were being conducted. A new Government director, with wider powers than those of the three independent directors whom he replaced, was appointed, and the Secretary of State arranged for a full inquiry into the affairs of the company by an independent investigator. Unfortunately, the report of that independent investigator is not yet available to hon.


Members, although I understand that it has reached the Government. The new Government director who has these much wider powers is Mr. Rendell, the Chief Executive Officer of the Colonial Development Corporation. Many hon. Members on both sides of the House know him well and will have every confidence in his ability, in his integrity and judgment.
The thing that appears to me to be extraordinary in the whole of this proceeding is that Mr. Rendell should continue to be saddled with the other directors of Bailey (Malta) Ltd., whose actions in the first place—which included salting, away in Bermuda in a pension fund money borrowed from the Colonial Office—were criticised last year. Since then they appear to have acted in such an unsatisfactory way that the three Government-nominated independent directors felt that they could no longer continue to serve.
In my view—and I make it clear that I am speaking without committing anybody except myself—the right solution would be for C.D.C. to be given the entire responsibility for the enterprise in Malta and to let Mr. Rendell run it with his own staff, which he is perfectly capable of doing, since no one can have much confidence so long as the remaining Bailey directors continue to occupy the positions they hold.
Each year recently the Committee has had cause to comment adversely on the relations between the Ministry of Health and the pharmaceutical industry. I know that the pharmaceutical industry feels that it is singled out to be the whipping boy not only of the P.A.C., but of Parliament. I am closely interested myself in these problems and in trying to improve the relationship between the industry and the Ministry, since I have one of the large pharmaceutical firms in my constituency and I regard myself, and I hope that I am regarded, as a friend of the industry.
The trouble arises when one has conditions which, because of patents, do not amount to free competition and at the same time the State is the largest customer. In these circumstances, the Ministry has a special duty to ensure that prices charged are "no more than fair and reasonable". Naturally, the Ministry has been cross-examined on

the subject by the Committee. The Ministry, because of lack of competition existing, had to fall back on cost investigations. It found some of the firms "a bit sticky" in producing the figures required by the Ministry to fulfil its duty of ensuring that prices were reasonable.
One of the firms, Cyanamid—and there is no reason to think that it is any way exceptional in this respect—on its own showing, made a profit on capital employed which ranged between 77 per cent. and 37·3 per cent. The latter figure, which I think is more accurate, included adjustments to take account of certain claims by the firm which seem reasonable. Whichever figure one takes, the profit figure was, naturally, regarded by the Ministry as indicating that there was room for the possibility of lower prices in prices charged to the Health Service.
The Ministry's first line of defence against too high prices is competition, but in many oases that is non-existent, being thwarted by patents. The Ministry's second line of defence is cost investigation, and that has met with "a sticky response" from the firms. The Ministry's third line of defence—and this is the one which it was driven to invoke—is Section 46 of the Patents Act, 1949, under which it invited tenders by firms who had not produced or developed the drugs.
Personally, I regret that the Ministry should have had to employ Section 46 of the Patents Act and break patents, but no Ministry would take an action like that unless driven to it. I suggest that the firms who developed the drugs could have avoided this action if they had been more forthcoming and mare co-operative in the provision of information, and I hope that they will follow that line in future.
I do not believe that the Ministry is blameless in all this. In evidence before the Committee the accounting officer told us that he was dissatisfied with the firms who had developed and manufactured the drugs, since these firms were making too large a profit on capital employed. That is a perfectly tenable proposition. The Ministry therefore brought in outside manufacturers who had not borne the heat and burden of the day, but who had merely copied drugs which other people had developed. However, when I asked


the accounting officer what was the percentage profit on capital employed by these firms, he replied that he did not know and did not need to find out.
I should have thought that what was sauce for the goose was sauce for the gander and that if the yardstick of percentage profit on capital employed was applied to the man who had developed a drug and as such had earned some merit, the same should be applied to the firm who had merely pinched someone else's patent under the cloak of the dubious respectability of Section 46 of the Patents Act. So long as the Ministry acts like that, although, admittedly, it had provocation, it is bound to incur distrust by the industry.
Then we come to the question of expenditure on sales promotion, £6½ million out of sales amounting to £67 million, or approximately 10 per cent. Sales promotion expenses in a free market must be left to individual firms, whose sales will suffer if they spend too little and whose profits will suffer if they spend too much on sales promotion. But when dealing with a single buyer, the British taxpayer, different considerations must apply. Sales promotion costs in this case should be limited to what will keep doctors informed. Any further expenses on promotion of one equally efficacious drug against another is a pure waste of the taxpayers' money to the aggrandisement of one firm against its rivals, and should be discouraged.
At the same time, I do not want to see the Ministry become too unpopular with the industry, particularly because of the danger to our export trade. If we get into the position where foreign-owned firms set up their subsidiaries anywhere rather than in England because they feel that they will be pilloried by the Ministry of Health if they come here, that will do our export trade immense damage in the long run, and that export trade is of great value. The 1961 figure, the latest we have, was £48 million. It is a steadily rising figure and I do not want our export trade to be damaged through a lack of understanding between the Ministry and the industry. It is important to do our utmost to improve relations between them.
Paragraphs 62 to 69 of the Report deal with an absurd situation which arose

over the development and design of a wireless set. The Ministry of Aviation went out to so-called competitive tender and invited eight firms to submit tenders, suggesting that it would be helpful if the eight firms were to submit technical appreciations at the same time. Six of the firms submitted these technical appreciations. The Ministry, on receipt of the tenders, placed the contract with the firm which had quoted the highest price for development, and the second highest overall price for development and production. In other words, the whole process of tendering was rendered a farce.
One firm, which had been invited to tender, was ruled out on the ground of a poor performance on an earlier contract, and others on the grounds that the Ministry thought that they would be unlikely to be able to meet delivery dates. It is difficult to escape the conclusion that the Ministry itself failed to do its homework, and instead of producing its own technical appreciation of what it required, relied on the technical appreciations which it suggested tendering firms might care to produce. Furthermore, one would have thought that the unsuccessful firms must have a very real grievance in having been encouraged to go to the trouble and considerable expense of producing technical appreciations and of tendering when they had been virtually ruled out of the race before they started.

Mr. Harold Wilson: Hear, hear.

Mr. Arbuthnot: May I take this opportunity of congratulating the right hon. Member for Huyton, to whom I referred earlier in my speech, on having landed safely? We were wondering whether he was going round London in an aeroplane in the fog, having difficulty in getting down. We are very glad to see him with us.

Mr. H. Wilson: I apologise to the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Arbuthnot) for having missed the first five minutes of his speech. I have listened to and admired everything that he has said since.

Mr. Arbuthnot: To return to the Ministry and its contract for this wireless set, I hope that it will never again


stage a charade of this kind which can only bring its tendering procedure into disrepute. This incident serves again to emphasise the need for giving tenderers clear, precise, and well-considered requirements if the best value is to be obtained from competition. It may be that this essential need has been forgotten in the years when non-competitive contracts have been predominant, and the welcome return to competition must not be hampered by slackness in specification, as seems to have occurred in this case.
The last item I wish to mention in moving that note be taken of our Report concerns the Birmingham-Preston motorway, M.6, with which we deal in paragraphs 87 to 93. What happened here emphasises the importance of controlling design if value is to be obtained from the large expenditure on the roads programtm of about £100 million a year. In this instance a review of contract documents and specifications showed that large savings could be secured by detailed changes in design which did not alter the overall design of the roads. The Committee found that there had been no detailed study of savings to be obtained on an average motorway from variations in permitted gradients. We deal with this in paragraph 93, and I am glad to see from the Treasury Minute that the Ministry is now to mend its ways and do this.
My introduction of the Committee's Report has of necessity been selective in the items that I have mentioned. Other hon. Members will no doubt wish to bring out points of substance which lack of time has made it necessary for me to leave out. This Report has been a unanimous one of your Committee, and I ask that note be taken of it by the House.

4.25 p.m.

Mr. Kenneth Robinson: I am sure that the whole House is appreciative of the admirable way in which the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Arbuthnot) introduced this Motion this afternoon, and for the extremely fair speech he made.
We were very interested in the hon. Gentleman's description of the purpose and the functioning of the Public Accounts Committee. During the course of his remarks he explained that it was no purpose of the Committee to record the success stories of the Government.

This leads me to reflect that if that had been its purpose, we should, perhaps, have have a rather thinner Report than this weighty document before us today.
Clearly, the House is at liberty to discuss any one or all of the dozens of items of expenditure which are dealt with in this Report. Many of them are important, but none, I think, more important than the question of drug prices and price control, to which the hon. Gentleman devoted part of his speech. It is to this issue that I wish to address my remarks, and I hope that the House will think it desirable to devote part of the time allotted to this debate to a discussion of the pharmaceutical issues.
I think that the House and the taxpayer should be grateful to the Committee, under the chairmanship of my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson), for what I can only call its relentless pursuit over a long period of savings in the procurement of drugs for the National Health Service. I hope that the Minister of Health, and, indeed, the Treasury, feel the same gratitude, because the Committee has without doubt strengthened to a considerable extent the hand of the Ministry in negotiating price reductions.
I want to make one thing clear at the outset. I have said this many times before, but I had better get it on the record once again. I am sure that everyone, and particularly those in any way associated with the National Health Service, must be profoundly grateful to the drug industry for the life-saving products which pharmaceutical research has given us, especially in recent years. The discoveries which they make are a great contribution to the health of peoples all over the world, but these sentiments, however sincerely held, cannot, and, I believe, should not, inhibit us in any way from criticising, where criticism in our view is justified, the methods used in the commercial exploitation of those discoveries.
Equally, I think that we are entitled, indeed I think it is our duty, to demand the most stringent testing and independent appraisal before new drugs are released on to the market and administered to human beings. But this is a matter which does not directly arise out of these Reports, and I hope that perhaps we can discuss it more fully on another occasion.
Most of these Reports deal with drugs covering the operation of the voluntary price regulation scheme which was first introduced in, I believe, 1957, and substantially revised about two years ago. This is the scheme which fixed the price of drugs by an agreement which we use for the general pharmaceutical services of the National Health Service, and I should remind the House that this price fixing becomes operative only after the expiry of a three-year period during which the producers of new drugs are entitled to charge whatever sums they think fit. This is designed to recoup them for the research expenditure which has gone into the production of these and perhaps other less successful drugs, and, indeed, into a number of drugs which are failures.
It is clear that from the beginning of its investigations the Committee had a feeling that the Minister of Health had been somewhat weak-kneed in conducting these price negotiations, that he had perhaps too often been out-manoeuvred by manufacturers who are described in this Report by the accounting officer of the Ministry as tough negotiators. But in the last year or two, under the stimulus of the Public Accounts Committee, and, indeed, of certain observations made from this side of the House, a number of improvements and savings have been made in drug procurement.
First, a more stringent voluntary price regulation scheme was negotiated with the industry when the original scheme came up for renewal. Price reductions, one or two of them a quite substantial, followed the revision of that scheme. But, in my view, the scheme still contains many inherent weaknesses. For example, as the hon. Member for Dover explained, there are alternative bases for fixing prices. There is the basis of profitability of a drug, the basis of profitability of a manufacturer's whole United Kingdom business or whole National Health Service business and the basis that is hinged to the price which the manufacturer obtains in export markets. As between these three methods of calculation the manufacturer is free to choose the one which suits him best, and, by definition, that is the one which suits the taxpayer worst.
Furthermore, these negotiations inevitably must depend on information

which only the manufacturer can supply to the Minister—information about profit margins, about manufacturing and ingredient costs, and about research and general overheads. Many manufacturers have shown extreme reluctance in providing this information. The hon. Member for Dover said that they had been a bit sticky, which, I suggest, is one of the understatements of the Session. Pharmaceutical manufacturers can be compelled to provide this information. The Minister has power to enforce the provision of it, but I understand that it is never used. I have read the Minutes of Evidence and the accounting officer's suggestion that this is a power kept in reserve. I think that he said in one answer that it was "brandished". The Public Accounts Committee thinks—and I agree—that the Ministry has been very slow to use this compulsory power, or even to threaten to use it.
I call attention to the case of the four Swiss firms—Ciba, Geigy, Sandoz and Roche—referred to in the Report. Negotiations have been going on with them fax two and a half years in trying to fix the prices of certain drugs. The fact that they have not yet reached finality is unquestionably due to the reluctance and, indeed, the refusal over a long period of these companies to provide the essential information which the Ministry needs in order to fix prices on the chosen basis of calculation.
There is the case of the four British subsidiaries of United States drug manufacturers. Here the negotiations dragged on for eighteen months in respect of drugs to the value of over £10 million per annum which were sold to the National Health Service alone.
The unfortunate thing is that there is every incentive to delay on the part of the manufacturer. This is another weakness of the regulation scheme, because there is no provision for retrospection. In question No. 802 on page 64 of the Minutes of Evidence, the Chairman asked the accounting officer:
Does this not give an incentive to them"—
that is, the manufacturers—
to drag out the negotiations?
The answer was:
I suppose the honest answer to that is, on information yes. It also naturally gives an incentive to us


in the opposite direction and since, as regards the provision of information, it is we and not they who hold the whip hand"—
presumably that is a reference to the compulsory powers—
then I should hope it would be our incentive which would prove to be more forceful in the event than theirs.
In the event, there is no doubt that it is the manufacturers' incentive to delay which has proved more forceful. As for the Ministry's whip hand, I can only suggest that it seems to be tied behind its back.
I should like the Financial Secretary to tell us, when he replies, why settlements cannot be back-dated. Much of the evidence before the Committee suggested that this would give rise to all sorts of administrative difficulties. I cannot believe that they are insuperable difficulties. Surely if one negotiates at a price, and wishes to back-date it to the beginning of the negotiations, it is not beyond the wit of man to issue credit notes to wholesalers and from wholesalers to retailers for the difference between the negotiated price and the original price. I cannot think that that would lead to any considerable difficulty.
Perhaps a compromise may be arrived at by which, once negotiations to fix the price of a drug start, a time limit is set on the negotiations—say, three months—and that if the negotiations are concluded within that period the price becomes operative from the time that they are concluded, but that if they drag on beyond the three months it is back-dated to the beginning of the negotiations. In this way, there would be an incentive to press ahead with the negotiations, and it would be in the interests of the manufacturers to co-operate to that end.
I come to the nature of the information which has to be supplied by the manufacturers to the Ministry and the different interpretations that can be, and are, placed on various pieces of information. There is a good example of that in this Report, that of Merck, Sharp and Dohme, the manufacturers of ohlorothiazide. If hon. Members refer to question No. 826 and the following questions on page 66 of the Minutes of Evidence, they will see that the United Kingdom profits of this firm, as worked out by the Ministry of Health, were 184 per cent. on the capital employed.
Bat the industry's accountants, Messrs. Cooper Bros., produced a totally different basis for calculating profits on capital. I understand that they took in a part of the American capital which was supposed to be relevant to the British subsidiary. By doing that, they brought the rate of profit on capital employed down from 184 to 30 per cent.
To prove which of these is a fair assessment we need a lot more information. For example, we need to know whether the British subsidiary bought its basic ingredients from the parent company in America and, if so, the price? If it bought them at cost price, then that is reasonable, but if it bought them at an inflated price, incorporating a considerable measure of profit for the United States parent company, or, indeed, if it paid royalities on the drug to the parent company, those payments could well be taken as servicing the amount of the United States capital that had been applied to the British subsidiary. In that case, the figure of 184 per cent. would be correct. Does the Ministry ask for this information? If so, does it get it?
The answer that we always get when we criticise high drug prices is that these are due to research. We are told that vast sums are spent on research and that these must be recouped, and that the only way that they can be recouped is by ensuring that there is a healthy margin of profit on the minority of successful drugs thrown up by the research departments. There is a good deal in this argument, but the fact is that most basic pharmaceutical research is done by a very small number of companies in Britain. I think that an article in the Sunday Times last Sunday suggested that the number was only half a dozen. I should have put the figure slightly higher than that.
Many pharmaceutical companies do little or none of this basic research. Their effort is directed much more to finding a slight variant of an existing successful drug which can give them a patent monopoly and allow them to get a share of the market. Some do no research at all. The same criteria cannot or should not with justice be applied to the different types of manufacturer when it comes to research.
Then we come to another matter dealt with by the hon. Member for Dover, the


very vexed question of promotion costs. Here again, for years, the Ministry has been trying to discover the percentage of manufacturing costs which were represented by such things as advertising, free samples and the cost of representatives calling on doctors. At long last, the Ministry has managed to obtain some figures and they are published in the Report. They are the figures for the industry as a whole. The total amounts to about £6½ million which, as the hon. Member said, represents 10 per cent. of the net sales. That in itself—I agree with him—His a very high figure indeed when we are dealing with drugs where there is virtually only one purchaser, the Minister, either directly or indirectly.
This is a figure not far short of the total figure claimed for research expenditure by the industry in this country. Of the £6½ million, nearly £3 million went on representatives who call on doctors, and £3½ million on advertising and on free samples. But, of course, all figures for the whole industry are quite useless for the purpose of price negotiation, particularly when we are negotiating for individual drugs.
These figures are supplied by the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry. They can only have been obtained by getting the figures from individual companies represented by the Association and adding them together. Why could not the Association have sent to the Ministry the figures for the individual companies? We all know that one or two firms, particularly firms which originated in the United States, spent far more than the average on promotion costs. Why cannot the Ministry get a break-down and take these promotional costs into account in negotiating prices for the National Health Service?
I do not know why the Ministry takes such a prim view about promotional expenditure, why it is so reluctant to say what it considers to be a reasonable percentage of expenditure on promotion, and what represents, in its view, excessive expenditure. We all appreciate that the Minister cannot dictate what a pharmaceutical company spends on promoting its products, but, at least, he can insist that excessive advertisement costs are not paid for by the National Health Service.

That is the only point that I am making, and I think the main point that the Public Accounts Committee was making.
I strongly support the recommendation on page xxxiv of the Report that
…the Ministry should not confine their activities to seeking a reduction of profit but should also be critical of costs, particularly those of sales promotion activities, which should be accepted only if they are of proved value to the Health Service.
I agree with the hon. Member that we are here dealing with an almost unique situation that the products which the Minister directly or indirectly buys are almost the whole home production. There are in addition, in some cases, exports.
There is little evidence still, I think, that the Minister recognises or, indeed, if he recognises, exploits the full strength of his bargaining position in these negotiations. They are, of course, patented drugs, and, in general, patent confers monopoly. But the 1949 Patents Act, in protecting the patent holder, also went some way in protecting the public interest against exploitation by monopoly.
There are two Sections in that Act, Sections 41 and 46, which do this, and I have always understood that they were Sections for which the late Sir Stafford Cripps was largely responsible. Section 46 has already been referred to. This is the Section which entitles a Government Department to make use of any patented invention for the services of the Crown subject to a royalty either to be agreed by the patent holders, or in default of agreement to be fixed by the High Court. I do not share with the hon. Member for Dover his sorrow that recourse had to be made to Section 46. This seems to me a perfectly proper use of a safeguard for the taxpayer which was deliberately inserted in this Act of Parliament. We know that for some time before the Minister acted, certain hospital authorities had been buying from continental sources a few drugs, mainly antibiotics, at less than half the figure that they cost in the United Kingdom.
It is over a year ago that the Minister decided to purchase five of these drugs centrally, by annual contract and competitive tender, for use in hospitals. I emphasise this because the use of these drugs in hospitals is only about 15 per cent. of the total use throughout the


National Health Service. So this represents only a marginal saving. The five contracts were duly let and the Report reveals that the cost of these drugs was about 60 per cent. below the price being charged by the United Kingdom manufacturers, the monopoly and the patent holders, all of whom in this case, I think, were British subsidiaries of American firms.
The interesting thing is that this price, which is 40 per cent. only of the United Kingdom price, included an import duty which certainly was not less than 10 per cent. and which, in some cases, might have been higher. This means that these drugs are being produced at something like one-third of the cost at which they are being sold by the licensees in the United Kingdom.
These contracts were for one year only. The have just expired. I should like to ask one or two questions about what is happening in the future. Were the contracts satisfactorily carried out? Was the quality of the drugs supplied and their distribution satisfactory? Have any new contracts been let for the corning year and, if so, was this regarded by the Ministry as a successful experiment? Has it invited tenders for any further drugs which are widely used in the National Health Service, and where it feels that the price that it has to pay is excessive? If it has not, I should like to know why not.
Before leaving Section 46, I should like to ask one further question. I understand that one United States firm, Messrs. Pfizer, began proceedings against the Minister for his action under Section 46. I do not know whether that case is proceeding or whether it has been dropped.
I spoke of two Sections. The other Section of the Patents Act, Section 41, seems to me to be in serious danger of becoming a dead letter very much on account of the Machiavellian, or, perhaps, I ought to say Fabian tactics of some of the larger drug houses. Perhaps I should remind the House what this Section does. It contains the provision for the granting of compulsory licences. It is potentially a very great safeguard for the public interest against monopoly. If a firm applies to a patent holder for a licence to manufacture and that licence is either refused or offered on wholly

unreasonable terms, under Section 41 that firm can apply to the Patents Court for a compulsory licence. The Act states that a licence shall be granted if the court is satisfied that the firm applying is perfectly capable of producing the products.
The purpose is that if the product—and this is limited to food and drugs—can be manufactured and sold at less than the monopoly price after the payment of a reasonable royalty, the public should have the benefit of the lower price. I believe that only one such licence has ever been granted since this Act came into operation thirteen years ago. I am told that even in that case the product in question was never manufactured by the firm that was granted the compulsory licence—an odd fact, to say the least.
There are same applications in the pipeline at the moment and this is a longer and more sluggish pipeline than the one we hear so much about from Scottish Ministers from time to time. Here again, the value of delay to the monopolists is enormous. They can easily spin out the negotiations for a voluntary licence for a year or more before the negotiations actually break down, which is necessary for the applicant to apply under Section 41. At the end of the day they can demand a wholly unreasonable royalty and then, when an application for a compulsory licence is made, they can ask for and invariably obtain postponment after postponement, dragging on the negotiations for months and in some instances for years before the case even comes for a hearing before the Patents Court.
Most drugs have only a limited profitable life before they are superseded by something better, and if this process is dragged on long enough it is no longer worth while the applicant carrying on with his application. Firms which apply for compulsory licences under Section 41 deserve more help and encouragement than they get at the moment from Government Departments, and particularly from the Board of Trade and the Ministry of Health. After all, the taxpayer can only gain from the granting of compulsory licences. Reductions amounting to about £3 million a year have been obtained in the last couple of years since the Voluntary Price Regulation Scheme was revised.
When we were discussing the question of the double prescription charge I told the Minister of Health that if he was looking for savings he would do far better to look at drug prices more thoroughly. I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has taken that advice and has followed the lead of the Public Accounts Committee, but we on this side of the House believe that a good deal more can be done. After all, the supply of drugs to the Health Service is a very big business indeed. Many millions of pounds are involved. These price negotiations are tough, and I wish that I could think that the Ministry brought the same toughness and resources to bear on the negotiations as the industry does.
The House will know that the whole question of drug testing, clinical trials, and the search for new drugs is very much under scrutiny at the moment. We already have a spokesman for the pharmaceutical industry saying that if more elaborate and thorough testing has to take place it means an increase in drug prices. Before we, the taxpayers, assent to this proposition we must be absolutely sure that the existing profit margins cannot absorb this extra cost. In many cases I have no doubt that they could absorb them.
Many pharmaceutical manufacturers, I readily admit, and I think most of the indigenous British firms, are, in general, content with a fairly reasonable margin of profit. A few—and one must mention in this connection the subsidiaries of United States and Swiss firms—are clearly out to exploit their monopoly position. It is the duty of the Minister, of the Treasury, and of the House to see that the National Health Service is not a mulch cow for any commercial interest.
I repeat that we should all be grateful for what the Public Accounts Committee has done to this end, on our behalf and on behalf of taxpayers.

4.55 p.m.

Mr. Compton Carr: I welcome the opportunity of following in the debate the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson), because I should like to pay attention briefly to questions raised before the Public Accounts Committee on advertising by the pharmaceutical industry. I am

not really the man to speak about advertising, because I am probably the most sales-resistant man in the House. No man comes to the door and sells to me—not even the man selling onions—and telephone calls offering me a free dancing lesson leave me absolutely cold.
I appreciate, as I used to believe everyone in the country appreciated, that advertising is a necessary part of free enterprise. In view of the atmosphere in which discussions of this matter take place and the fact that one is very often left, as I think with great respect the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North left us, with the impression that the pharmaceutical industry is, to use an American expression, "gouging" and is trying to take every possible cent out of the Health Service, it is only fair to mention, as I have not heard mention, the survey which the A.P.B.I. completed recently. It was to determine the cumulative values of price reductions and increases for branded drugs over the period 1957–61. This showed that there was a net saving in that period of over £9 million to the Health Service. The sales value of the reductions was well over £9 million, and the sales value of increases was about £110,000.
I realise that a large amount of this was due to reductions required by the Voluntary Price Regulation Scheme, but it was not as much as hon. Members sometimes believe and certainly not as much as the public are sometimes led to believe. Less than half of the reduction was due to the scheme. It is fair to the industry to mention figures of that nature, and it is fair to say, as everyone involved in the industry will know, that that saving was achieved despite increases in costs and wages.
We have been assured by hon. Members on both sides of the House, in several debates on the pharmaceutical industry, that it is estimated that the manufacturers have made and are making a tremendous contribution to the advance of therapeutics in this country through their research and development. But there is always an "if" and a "but" after this. I hope that I shall not be accused of making the suggestion, but it strikes me that if one follows the argument of the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North this industry might expect eventually to have no kind of protection.


The logical conclusion is to say that patent protection is monopoly, and monopoly enables the seller in a limited market—and that the Government—to take some profit, whether that be large or small. This is very often a matter of pure surmise and opinion and, therefore, the argument might be followed logically to exclude this kind of industry from the protection of the Patents Act.
This is the direction in which some hon. Members oposite point. They point towards their desire to see the pharmaceutical industry, with its huge capacity for research and development, as part of the Health Service. It has been said before and I do not think that we have heard the last of it. Surely that is the logical outcome of a complete blanket argument on these grounds.
I do not say for a moment, and I do not think that anybody who knows the pharmaceutical industry as well as I do would say, that there are not many black sheep in the fold, Obviously, there are, as there are in every profession, including the one to which I have the honour to belong. We seek to sort out the black sheep from the white, and to give the white sheep a fair measure of profit in their dealings with the industry.
I now return to the question of expenditure on advertising and sales promotion. This is lumped together in the figure given by the hon. Member. The £6½ million includes the expenditure incurred in visits by representatives to doctors, as well as the cost of sending samples, together with what is true sales promotion, namely, the advertising matter that comes through the letter box and appears in the journals.

Mr. Gordon Walker: Surely they will not do it for any other reason.

Mr. Carr: There is a great difference between sales promotion of the second type and that of the representative. In the case of other industries the costs involved by representatives are often left out of the advertising figures. That is why the hon. Member's figure is misleading.
It was admitted before the Public Accounts Committee that representatives who called on doctors brought a great deal of knowledge with them. Although, at one time, it was suggested that many

representatives did not have much knowledge, it was finally agreed that most were well qualified, and that these people brought knowledge to bear upon doctors' problems and maintained a steady service of opinion to the doctors which those doctors might miss if literature were merely delivered through their letter boxes or appeared in the Press.

Mr. K. Robinson: Why is it found necessary to use both methods?

Mr. Carr: The question is whether one agrees that competition is a good thing. It has been marginally suggested that there is no competition here, and that what we have is a lot of producers of different items—items so different that in reality these producers are advertising their wares against no competition. That suggestion is unfair.

Dr. Barnett Stross: Casting my mind back and remembering the benefits that I received from representatives who came to my surgery, I wonder whether the hon. Member is not loading the dice in their favour. The representative may be a different type of person now, but in my time he came to sell and to describe the virtues of the products that his firm was making. He came for no other purpose. I do not believe that he is coming for any other purpose now. That fact ought to be accepted. It is reasonable; after all, the doctor can always refuse to see him if he does not want to. I admit that some of these representatives are well qualified to speak to their own brief, but they are expensive people to have, and their number—2,400 for the country as a whole—is rather excessive.

Mr. Carr: The hon. Member and I seem to be slightly at cross-purposes. Obviously, these representatives come to sell, but if we are to work up a system of connections between the pharmaceutical companies and the doctors whom they serve, these representatives form a valuable link. Although it cannot be said that a kind of early warning system is provided solely by these representatives, their is no doubt that if any drug were causing alarm to the ordinary general practitioner the representative on the doorstep would be one of the first people to hear about it. That is a fair indication that they have more worth than is suggested by their being called


merely pill peddlars. They cannot be written off as useless and it cannot be suggested that the cost involved is excessive.
People do not advertise for fun. Anybody who works in industry knows that advertising expenditure may go too far in any one company or industry, but it always boomerangs back against the company or industry which is trying to push it too high.

Mr. K. Robinson: How can the hon. Member say that this is not excessive? Let us suppose that half this expenditure were incurred by one firm. Would not he consider that excessive? The hon. Member says that they do not advertise for fun. Perhaps that is so, but if they feel that they can get all their advertising costs paid back by the National Health Service there is not much inducement to cut down on promotional expenses.

Mr. Carr: That is true. On the other hand, if a company spends a large amount, thereby boosting its sales, the increase in sales of itself tends to reduce the price of its goods. The mere fact that a company is spending a lot of money does not mean that it is spending a large percentage per pill on promotional literature. This is an argument which can go on for ever. If a person does not believe in advertising in its own right, as a service, he never will believe it in connection with the pharmaceutical industry or any other industry.
The firm which does not advertise tends to sell less than the firm which does, and the firm which sells less has a higher unit price, simply because it has a smaller production. That is one of the facts of industrial life. It is not possible to take one item and say that it is not merely excessive, but that it ought not to exist at all. Anybody who is guilty of merely boosting a price to sell his own goods must expect to be dealt with appropriately, especially when he is dealing with the State.
This is the essence of the A.B.P.I.'s agreement to the various measures which the Ministry has taken in recent years. The only point is that the A.B.P.I. feels that it is unfair to use this general argument against advertising—

this allegation that it is wasteful to advertise beyond a certain level—simply to attack the pharmaceutical industry. In considering the question of goods put out to tender one does not ask where the financial and promotional level is.

Mr. K. Robinson: This is the second time that this point has been raised. The hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Arbuthnot) also raised it. The difference is that if goods are being bought by competitive tender there is not the same necessity to look into finance and castings as there is if they are being supplied by a monopoly.

Mr. Carr: I am grateful to the hon. Member for coming back to that point. There is no absolute monopoly in the pharmaceutical industry. No single individual and no single part of the industry has an absolute monopoly of any one drug. There are always variants of a drug. The hon. Member may call it molecular roulette, or what he likes, but other companies manufacture the drug. I may be wrong—I know that the hon. Member knows a great deal about the industry, and my interest is only of a few years' standing—but I do not think that there is a single case in which it can be said that one company produces a drug which no other company produces. If that could be said, then obviously there would be a monopoly.

Dr. Stross: I thank the hon. Member for giving way, but this is a non-party matter. Has not he realised that the weakness of his argument lies in the fact that different firms produce completely identical drugs which they supply with different trade names? That being the case, a firm's advertisements are directed to the sales of its own drug—which is the same as the drugs of some of its competitors—and its efforts are directed towards getting doctors to prescribe its own drug. If that is the case—and in my opinion it is—is not that wasteful? Should we pay for this?

Mr. Carr: With great respect, that is just what I maintain. It is not wasteful. This is the thing which cuts away the argument about monopoly. If Bloggs, Spinks and Snooks are all producing the same thing, they create a ring and make the same prices. That is "gouging", to use a vulgar term. If they all produce


an almost identical product and they say that doctors should use it because it is better—and if, indeed, it is as good as the others and doctors would not say "I would not have that stuff in the place"—if they are all equal in value, surely, that is the whole essence of free enterprise. It does not of itself add to the expense; in fact, it reduces expense because of the element of competition.
I know that one uses that phrase and that some hon. Members do not like it, but surely most hon. Members are aware that it has already been dealt with by the Harvard Business Review in what was a very interesting look at the Russian pharmaceutical industry. One of the things which, I am sure, hon. Members wilt have noticed arose was that one suddenly found representatives of the Soviet Minister of Health complaining that the retail prices were four, five or even six times the wholesale prices for pharmaceutical goods, and it was said that this was something which would have to be stopped.
But much the more interesting thing was that it became quite obvious when one looked at the Soviet system that the branded name, or whatever one likes to call it, is something which has come into being. If a factory turns out something of a lower standard than is required, one could lay the blame where it was due, and this is exactly what has happened with some of the branded names over here. I am quite sure that the hon. Member himself, in the days when he was sitting behind a desk, would not have prescribed something which would not do what he wanted it to do or which it claimed to do.
I have taken up a great deal of time, unwittingly, but, as the hon. Member said, this is a non-party matter. There is one other thing which has been said, and I am sure that it was referred to in the Report, and that is the comparison with advertising. The hon. Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson) mentioned the comparison between the total cost of advertising and sales promotion and the industry's ex penditure on research. I think that this is a little unfair, because there are quite a few large companies in this country whose research and development is done overseas, and, therefore, one cannot take that argument a very long way.
On the question of prices and the high cost of advertising, it does not seem possible that one can continue to maintain that position in the face of our experience over the years in free enterprise. There is one other thing which I think it is fair to bring into this discussion, and it is that a statement has been made which may give rise to the impression that the A.B.P.I. did not care about the conduct of members. One could draw that inference, especially on the basis of advertising. No one has mentioned the A.B.P.I.'s efforts in sales promotion.
It may not be generally known that the A.B.P.I. itself has established a code of conduct for its members which covers a tremendous range. It contains a penalty clause in which it is clearly stated that non-adherence to the code could lead to expulsion from the Association. Therefore, it is only fair that this should be known. The new issue of the code is only the second edition, and it will be available soon. It is very comprehensive indeed, and I think that it is only fair to the industry that it should be mentioned.
I am most grateful to the Committee for allowing me so much time to speak, even if some of my speech was in the nature of cross-talk, and for the treatment which I have been accorded in speaking on a subject upon which I have not spoken in this House before.

5.17 p.m.

Dr. Barnett Stross: I, too, would like, in the first place, to say how much I enjoyed the speech of the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Arbuthnot) and also the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson). I have not read all the evidence that was given before the Committee, but I have spent some hours on it, and I was astonished to find how much knowledge seemed to be available by members of the Committee when they were cross-examining expert witnesses. I think that we are all greatly indebted to them, and I am very happy to be able to say this. It represented a remarkable amount of work which obviously meant very considerable application on the part of hon. Members in order to be able to arm themselves with sufficient knowledge to conduct themselves as they evidently did.
I should say that I have an interest to declare. I have for years been a director


of a manufacturing firm of fine drugs, and this rightly inhibits me to some extent. Therefore, I want to speak particularly about chemists' remuneration, because that will take up the point which I rose to discuss with the hon. Member for Barons Court (Mr. Compton Carr). Chemists' remuneration is dealt with by the Public Accounts Committee, and its Report discusses the negotiations with the Ministry and the Minister's proposal for a reduction of the remuneration of chemists.
Hon. Members will perhaps remember that the chemists wanted an increase, but that, in the end, the Minister decided that they should not have an increase but that there should be a reduction in the fees made available to them. Whether that be right or wrong, I do not know, because I do not know all the facts. There is a dispute, and the Minister, in any event, has said that the smaller chemists, those with the lowest total incomes, should not have any reduction. I think that that has been accepted.
The point I want to raise is this. The chemists have said, and I know this is true, that they have a great deal of dead stock, and that they lose money because they bought expensive things, not to keep in stock, but because prescriptions are brought into them by private citizens on the E.C.10 form handed to them by their doctors, who prescribe under a particular name a branded drug. If the chemists have not got that drug, they say, "I am sorry, but I have not got it", and, if it is in the evening, they say that if the person would call again by 12 noon on the following day, they would have time to get it in.
Let us consider the possibility that this is a life-saving drug. Let us suppose that it is a soluble form of penicillin to give to a child. I find it wrong that if a chemist has five out of the six completely identical preparations in his shop and it is the sixth, an identical one to all the other five, which is prescribed, he is not allowed to substitute one identical drug for another. Obviously, therefore, the chemist gets a good deal of wastage and bad stock. This causes him to lose money.
If the chemist were allowed to do what I am suggesting—substitute a completely identical preparation which he

has in stock for the one which is ordered—two things would happen. The lesser in importance is that he would not lose so much money and, therefore, any reduction that the Minister proposes to make would not hurt him so much. What is to me much more important is that people who are seriously ill, particularly children, would not have to wait overnight until next day until a life-saving drug was made available.
When dealing with hospitals, one finds that the hospital pharmacist does exactly what I am pleading should be possible for the chemist to do in his shop. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury may not know this, but if the Minister were sitting with him he would agree that this is so. When a consultant prescribes, the hospital pharmacist can perform that act of substitution—and why not?
Take an extreme and absurd case, which, perhaps, touches upon advertising. Vaseline is a proprietary word, a branded name, and petrolatum is the normal substance. If a general practitioner prescribes Vaseline for his patients, he soon gets sat upon because it costs much more, because it has a branded name and is advertised, than petrolatum, which is exactly the same thing. He is expected to prescribe petrolatum. If he wrote on his prescription the word "Vaseline", the chemist in the shop would have to supply a tin with the name Vaseline on it. To me, this sounds quite silly.
Take another instance. We hear a great deal about phenobarbitone. A lot of it is used, perhaps too much and by too many people. I sometimes wonder how many people have accidents in the morning when driving because they have taken phenobarbitone the night before. It takes many hours—longer than twelve—before all trace of a drug of this kind is eliminated from the human body. However, phenobarbitone is the normal name for a particular drug. Another name is Luminal, which is a proprietary name and which, when I was in practice, cost about six times as much; but it is exactly the same. When I was a young medical man—that is going back some years—in my ignorance I used to prescribe Luminal. I was visited by the district medical officer in charge of prescribing; he taught me the facts of life and I have never prescribed it since. I


realise that it was absurd to give a prescription for something that unnecessarily costs so much. The reason why it cost so much was that it was advertised expensively.
When I say that it is not fair that a chemist should be loaded with a lot of things all of which are advertised and all of which are identical in their groups, I consider this to be an unnecessary expense upon the country. It is wrong for our citizens, too, that they should have to face this sort of thing. It is bad that doctors should have to be seen by skilled representatives each of them singing the merits of different preparations when amongst those things so many are identical. This is not good enough and I regard it as a mistake.
I hope that the Financial Secretary will say to the Minister, "Why do you not tackle the British Medical Association and demand from them the same thing that happens in the hospitals, namely, that if substances are absolutely identical there can be a substitution in the shop by the chemist when a prescription is brought in? "This would save money and prevent waste and I cannot see any valid argument against it.
I should like to say a general word about research. Research in the drug industry is a fairly recent phenomenon. It has grown in volume thanks to the work that discovered penicillin. It is since the first antibiotic was discovered, showing itself to be such a great lifesaving drug, that we have had a great deal of research and a lot of money has been spent. Most of it has been spent in America.
It is worth noting—and we must admit it—that it is in America that so many of these remarkable drugs have been discovered and that far more of them have come from the West than from behind the Iron Curtain, where there has been less pressure. It may be that the profit motive combined with the private large sums of money which could be poured into research has brought this about. Because this is the case, and because it is a good thing, there can be a bad aftermath from it. It is possible to suspect and to see a hysterical sort of search for variations of drugs or variations of a proven valuable drug or completely new drugs, because there are great prizes for a real winner.
I agree very much with my hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras, North that we must not be afraid to demand the most careful testing of drugs. However careful we may be, we shall never be able to guarantee to human beings that some kind of tragedy at some time or other may not occur again and again. At least, we should try to do rather more than we have done in the past.
I have said that the Americans have been successful. They have had great rewards. They have made great profits and I do not envy them. When, however, a particular drug has been patented and has had a remarkable volume of sales all over the world for many years, perhaps for ten, eleven or twelve years, and still has a few years to run and has made, like chloramphenicol has done, £20, £30, £40, or even £50 million profit net, surely the time comes when it should be sold much more cheaply.
The Minister has been right to take the advice that we urged upon him a couple of years ago in the case of selected drugs—only five—to use Section 46. He should look at Section 41. At the same time, those of us who are interested in the industry know that there must be sufficient money to continue to do research. There are still great benefits to be obtained for mankind if research is steadily and quietly conducted and encouraged. We need the results of research to be tested by independent organisations, such as, for example, the Medical Research Council or bodies of that kind, wherever possible. We need the most careful testing.
If we were to attack the industry too much and paralyse or impoverish it, something would be lost, but that danger is remote. It is the last thing that anybody in the House of Commons wants to do. The reason why the Public Accounts Committee scrutinised the industry is because we want a reasonable return for the taxpayer's money. Nobody wants to hurt or destroy an industry or prevent it from carrying on with research as successfully as possible. We are all grateful to the industry for what it has done. We do not, however, want to feel that we are being exploited—and there has been exploitation and we know it. That is all I intended to say. I am


grateful that I had the opportunity of listening to the hon. Member for Barons Court, who preceded me.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. A. P. Costain: I want first to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Arbuthnot) on the manner in which he opened the debate. It is always a personal pleasure for me to be able to congratulate my constituency Member. His comprehensive survey of the Reports highlighted the main facts. He was followed by the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson). Since then the debate has been rather limited to pharmaceutical matters. I shall not attempt to follow the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross), who is such an expert on these matters.
I am a comparatively new boy on the Committee of Public Accounts. I haw, had only one year's service. It would therefore be improper for me to say much in response to the kind remarks which have been made about the Committee. I see the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Sir G. Benson), the father of the Committee, in his place. If he is fortunate enough to catch the eye of the Chair, he will be better equipped to deal with this matter than I am.
Having served for one year on the Committee of Public Accounts, for one year on the Estimates Committee, and for 25 years in a managerial capacity in a public company, I want to give the House my impressions. Until I became a member of the Committee of Public Accounts, I did not fully appreciate the dual rôle which the Permanent Secretary of a Department has as Permanent Secretary and as accounting officer, on the first account being responsible to his Minister and on the second account being responsible to the Committee of Public Accounts. I did not appreciate why, whilst not relieving his Minister of the ultimate responsibility for his Department, he was responsible to the Committee of Public Accounts. I think that the nation should appreciate this and be grateful that we have such capable and experienced people in these positions.
The doctrine of Ministerial responsibility for all that goes on in a Department, for every decision taken, does much to make for extreme caution in those who have the day-to-day operational responsibilities. Much of their energy and time must of necessity be devoted to avoiding mistakes. One of our outstanding features, which is not often understood by other nations, is the extreme loyalty of civil servants to their Minister, regardless of party. I suggest that, because of their loyalty, they are over-anxious not to take some calculated risk which a director of a company might take, for fear of creating a situation which could be embarrassing for their Minister.
Because of the ultimate Ministerial responsibility, the occasions on which senior civil servants appear before Members of this House without being accompanied by their own Ministers are rare. Although there are many justifications for the work of the Committee of Public Accounts, the fact that it is only before this Committee and the Estimates Committee that senior civil servants regularly appear and give back benchers the opportunity of seeing their work is an important factor in the day-to-day operation of our democratic system.
A further justification for the existence of the Committee of Public Accounts is that it assists accounting officers to maintain their high standard of morality in matters of public finance. Although I have no experience in this connection, I should not be surprised if the fact that an accounting officer is ultimately responsible to the Committee for his Department's expenditure enables him to prevent his Minister—I remind the House that this is an all-party debate—being too easily persuaded by his friends on the back benches to act as "Lady Bountiful" in the distribution of the nation's funds.
In this House we often refer to the "cold clammy hand of the Treasury" because it fails to meet what we think are the just demands of our constituents. However, we are only too anxious to attack the overall expenditure. If I were to develop this matter any further, I am sure that I should be out of order.
I believe that the responsibility of accounting officers in general gives them


an authority to match their responsibility. It can be generally accepted in industrial practice that a good man in business ensures that responsibility and authority go hand in hand. The evidence we have collected during the course of the year in general indicates that this position exists.
It came to our notice that an unsatisfactory state of affairs exists, in that the Ministry of Housing and Local Government has the responsibility of issuing Exchequer grants to local authorities for all their services, over some of which services this Ministry has no control—for example, education. I draw attention to page 79 of the Special Report. The accounting officer to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, when asked whether she was not able to give the Committee some reason why there should be under-spending in the education services, replied as follows:
I think I ought to say at the outset that it is really for Education to answer that. We are in an odd and perhaps unique position now, in that while my Ministry must account for the grant, because we make the order, in fact it is only the different Departments, who negotiate with the local authorities and deal with the Treasury about it, who are responsible for the estimates of their own services. In the whole of the general grant there is only one service which is ours, and that is Town and Country Planning. So it would not be right for me to endeavour to answer for the Ministry of Education's estimating.
Same of the reasons for this are outlined in Appendix 2, on page 444. A number of aspects of this have now been put right.
Basically, we are debating the best methods by which to control authorised expenditure. The fundamental difference between the ultimate control exercised by an industrial company as against a Government Department is the comparative ease with which an industrial group is able to produce a balance sheet, bankruptcy being the ultimate result of inefficient management, whereas one is conscious of the difficulty of obtaining any reliable yardstick of efficiency in the case of a Government Department.
I should like to see—I know that this view is shared by other members of the Committee of Public Accounts—a concentrated effort to evolve a system of yardsticks of efficiency inside Government Departments. This could be achieved by the greater use of mechanisa-

tion and the mare extensive use of computers in Government Departments. The fact that the Committee of Public Accounts in general deals only with the accounts of those Departments with which the Auditor General's Department is not entirely satisfied tends to give an exaggerated impression of the inefficiency of the various Government Departments.
In endeavouring to eliminate loopholes there is a danger of introducing a too-colossal checking machine. I have not infrequently wondered whether the cost of such checking is not out of proportion to the resultant saving. A difficulty in this connection is that neither the accounting officer nor indeed the Committee of Public Accounts is in a position to take a calculated risk, a risk which an employer even in a public company can reasonably take.
In my studies in this connection I have come across a publication produced by a very well known and efficient company in this country—Marks and Spencer. I have no direct connection with Marks and Spencer, except that I understood from my wife this morning that she has a few shares in the company. This is an extremely interesting document, entitled "Publicity relating to the simplification of paper work". The Organisation and Methods Division of the Treasury has made some reference to this publication in one of its bulletins. I want to tell the House what that body has said about the whole documentation, which is simply a process by which the chairman of Marks and Spencer went round and asked, "Is this checking really necessary? Have we created a machine over the years which does not effectively work?".
These are the words of the Organisation and Methods Division of the Treasury:
These are examples of a most refreshing approach to the problems of excessive paperwork. For the Civil Service, the question is perhaps whether our obligation to adhere to the accumulated edicts of the Public Accounts Committee or the Treasury Officer of Accounts, arising from the very tight control involved in their concept of public accountability, rules out the chance of a similar drive for simplicity and economy. Take, for example, the question of goods received notes. There must be hundreds of millions of goods received notes in the various Civil Service Departments. Does the existence of an established code of procedure mean that there is but slight prospect of getting rid of a goodly number of


them? Do we have to conclude that the civil servant must have a piece of paper acknowledging the receipt of goods while others can be trusted to do without it?
The results of the Marks and Spencer operation provide a great encouragement to the O. &amp; M. officer, wherever he is. There is always a dividend to be obtained from the challenging approach (for example, on methods work) and, even if our Civil Service attitudes (and, let it be said, improved arrangements already achieved) may make an attack less immediately profitable than in the Marks and Spencer organisation, the attack should nevertheless be joined. We may yet for instance see the day when some bold spirit will cost the effect of some of the Civil Service traditional accounting practices and thus help to precipitate important changes.
The chairman of an important company is in a position to take that bold and imaginative approach. My fear is that the complexity of the Government machine makes an approach of this sort almost impossible to justify. It is only on the Floor of the House that such a bold and imaginative approach can take place.
On many occasions hon. Members on both sides of the House have been highly critical of mistakes which have been made. Opposition and Government back benchers have made hay when the searchlight of criticism has shone on mistakes. I often wonder whether the machinery set up does not cost, in some instances at any rate, more than the mistakes we set out to eliminate.
There are very few occasions when the Committee of Public Accounts, or indeed the House, congratulates an accounting officer on his incentive in taking what in commerce would be a quite justifiable risk. The attitude of civil servants must therefore be, "We must play safe".
A whole series of Public Accounts Committees has been critical of waste. Is it not possible that we are always on these occasions shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted and sealing the stable door with the seal of the Committee of Public Accounts, a seal which I think has great value? I do not in any way underestimate that seal, but what I do suggest to the House is that it might be advisable sometimes to pat accounting officers on the back rather than grab them by the shoulder as a policeman might. I think that this can be achieved only if we have a better

costing system within the various Departments.
I hold the view—I think that some of my colleagues on the Committee share it—that there are very many more instances where we could have comparative costs between Departments. There are occasions where we could have comparative costs between Departments and industry. Where that would not be possible, we might make comparisons with other countries. In my study of the subject, I have looked for yardsticks, for an efficient costing system.
In all Departments I came up against the difficulty of assessing the cost of Parliamentary Questions. I wonder whether all hon. Members realise the cost of having quick Answers to Questions. I believe that we should save quite a bit of public expense if we were allowed to have two types of Question, one for immediate answer, the other—perhaps relating to more mundane matters—for answer within a fortnight. I suggest that an investigation of this possibility might show us a way of making a considerable saving.
What I plead for this evening is that we should, so far as we can, adopt a changed attitude, the sort of attitude outlined in the Organisation and Methods document to which I have referred. I wish that we could encourage those civil servants who are prepared to take the initiative and, as a House, welcome what they do in that direction.

5.46 p.m.

Mr. Laurence Pavitt: The House will have appreciated the comments of the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain) who has given us an impression of his first year of very hard service. It is always interesting to both sides of the House when someone who has tackled a new job in the service of the House comes later to tell us what he feels about it. The hon. Gentleman's comments, which ranged widely over the Reports, were most valuable, and we all appreciate the service which he has given during his year of office. Having browsed through sufficient of the 485 pages of the Reports, I know that the hon. Gentleman spent a considerable time during the past year in asking most pertinent questions.
I differ from the hon. Gentleman on certain matters. I accept that, if we had greater mechanisation, if we used more computers, and so forth, this should lead to an overall saving in Government Departments, but I do not consider that it would reduce the work of the Public Accounts Committee because, inevitably, at the end of the day, we should still need the watch dogs, the human beings who would check what the machines had done.

Mr. Costain: If I gave the impression that it would reduce the work of the Public Accounts Committee, I did not mean to do so. My suggestion was for cutting down costs in Government Departments.

Mr. Pavitt: I fully understand that. It was precisely on that point that I was saying that, even if we were able to cut down the cost of work in Government Departments by greater mechanisation, we should still need an overall check at the end.
I do not share the hon. Gentleman's enthusiasm for Organisation and Methods. Those of us who serve on hospital management committees sometimes feel that the gentlemen of O. & M. spend a good deal of time, money and energy in suggesting methods of organisation which a little common sense on the part of our administrators has usually provided long before the O. & M. report is received.
The hon. Gentleman's comment that we are inclined to lock the stable door after the horse has bolted is not relevant to the Third Report of the Public Accounts Committee which reveals that, as a result of previous Reports, there was a saving of £500,000 on drugs, and the whole process was initiated by the Public Accounts Committee's previous efforts in this respect.
I wish to address myself primarily to the section of the Report which deals with drugs. I am glad that the previous pressure of the Committee and the way the Minister has responded to the suggested use of Section 46 has meant a saving on drugs, but I should be interested to know whether the Minister put up a fight about the ruling which was made that this could apply only to drugs in the hospital service. I understand that the patent law provides that

supplies for the service of the Crown are the things which can be dealt with under that Section.
The total drug bill has to be met ultimately by the taxpayer, whether the drugs are administered to the patient by hospitals or by the family doctor. If it is possible to save £500,000 on the limited amount dispensed through hospitals, is not the time ripe for the Public Accounts Committee and the Minister of Health to look at the matter again and consider whether it is possible to operate the bulk buying system, with subsequent negotiation about royalties, in respect of the great mass of drugs which are dispensed by the family doctor?
My hon. Friend the Member far St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson) did a service to the House in drawing attention to the other section of the Act, Section 41. There has been a good deal of talk about whether action will be possible in that connection, and I suggest that this is a subject for the Public Accounts Committee to take up in its future discussions arising out of the investigation which it makes from time to time into the cost of drugs.
The hon. Member for Barons Court (Mr. Compton Carr) put a case for advertising. The approach of the Public Accounts Committee has been right in concentrating a good deal of attention on the cost of drugs in the National Health Service. The supply of drugs under the Health Service is different on two counts from any other kind of commercial activity. Sales promotion goes on to persuade doctors to prescribe things for which they do not have to pay. The money is found by the taxpayer. This is a unique sort of sales promotion. I imagine that any salesman would be delighted to be able to sell his goods in that way, persuading people to take articles for which they do not have to pay. On that ground, it is right for the Public Accounts Committee to direct attention to the cost of promotion as part of the total bill.
Secondly, drugs supplied in this way are not ordinary marketable commodities. They are meant for the alleviation of sickness. Moral considerations enter into the matter. If a man is suffering pain, one should not try to make undue


profits out of him. I am sure that that line of thought ran through a good deal of the questioning recorded in the Minutes we have before us.
Can one justify 2,426 representatives calling on doctors? I know that general practitioners sometimes very much welcome the gentlemen who call. The purpose of their calls is supposed to be the giving of information. But, with 22,000 general practitioners on the medical lists, this means that there is more than one representative for every 100 general practitioners. Ls not this a substantial element in the total drug bill which the taxpayer has to meet?
The plea that the representatives give information is quite correct. They do, each selling his own product. But is it not the responsibility of the Minister of Health to provide information? He accents it to an extent. He now publishes every two months the Pre-scriber's Journal which has taken the place of the previous Prescriber's Notes. But the Minister's publication does not really compete with the promotion carried on by the drug houses. They are able to use all the arts of persuasion, whereas one can only describe the Prescriber's Journal as extremely dull. It looks dull and its contents are very limited in approach.
It would pay the Minister of Health, from the point of view of saving money on drugs, to produce a journal for prescribers which doctors would be anxious to have, which would present information in a form easily and quickly digested and give the kind of information which they really wanted. In this way, the Minister might well save an enormous amount of the cost of sales representation which goes on.
When I attended an international conference of doctors last month, I got into conversation with three general practitioners, one with a large list in Leeds, one from Bristol and one from the wilds of Sheerness. We discussed the problem of sales promotion. They all agreed that, when it came to making out the E.C.10, what influenced the practitioner most was not the glossy literature coming through the letter-box in large quantities every day, not the calendars, the diaries or the give-away desk gimmicks but the representative with whom he had

developed some kind of friendly relationship and whom he felt that he could trust. This may be heartening to people who like to feel that the human contact is more important than the printed word, but it does mean that not by the merits or scientific content of the commodities offered but by the personality of a very good salesman a doctor can be induced to prescribe quantities of drugs which may lead to excessive expenditure by the Ministry of Health.
My hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras, North reminded us that testing was an important matter, but he said that it was not really within the ambit of this debate. I think that he was referring primarily to clinical testing. I suggest that the Report of the Public Accounts Committee shows good reason why the Minister should pay more attention to quality testing. We are buying large quantities of drugs, and the amount of quality testing done is, I regret to say, totally inadequate.
Recently, a very interesting report was published by an officer of the Birmingham local authority. As the House knows, there are two ways of finding out whether what is described on the label is up to standard. One method comes within the ambit of the Food and Drugs Acts which are the concern of the local authority. The other form of testing is done under the Ministry's own testing scheme. Noteworthy variations in the contents of capsules tested in Birmingham were revealed. In some cases, there was excess up to 24 per cent.; in others, there were deficiencies of as much as 45 per cent.
If a patient is prescribed a medicine which is paid for at a standard price, it is reasonable to expect that a standard commodity will be given to him. If we are paying £69 million a year, it is only right that we should regard as significant the quality of what we are buying. Out of 125 tested samples of penicillin solution supplied by the proprietary companies, 38 proved to be deficient. This is what the Ministry is paying for, but the quality may or may not be up to standard. In barbiturate tablets the discrepancy between one firm and another supplying the National Health Service was extremely remarkable. Four firms were tested and in 83 samples not a single error could be found. Those were what the hon. Member for Barons Court would call the white


sheep. There was 100 per cent. satisfaction that they were delivering the commodities ordered. With two other firms, however, out of 67 samples, no fewer than 42 had to be rejected for not having the quantity of drug supposed to be in them. A question which should be considered is whether the Service is paying for the right quantity.
A further wide range of drugs was tested in Birmingham and out of 131 from one manufacturer there was not a single fault, but out of 208 from another manufacturer there were 70 faults. It seems that the case is made for the Ministry at least to tighten up its testing scheme. The testing scheme provides only that it must identify what is in the capsule, not whether the quantity is the precise amount which should be there.
Two main streams of argument have gone through the debate arising out of the Committee's questions on drugs to excuse high profits. The first has been that of research and the second the need to export. Of £48 million exports of drugs the proprietary houses exported only £14 million, less than a third of the total. In the case of the National Health Service, the Minister is constantly being urged to reduce the number of proprietary drugs prescribed and by using the National Formulary reduce the costs. It would seem that the proportion of N.H.S. profits going to the proprietary medicine firms is greater than their share of drug exports warrants.

Orders of the Day — ROYAL ASSENT

6.0 p.m.

Message to attend the Lords Commissioners:

The House went:—and, having returned:

Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to:

1. Tanganyika Republic Act, 1962.
2. Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Glasgow Order Confirmation Act, 1962.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

COMMITTEE OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS (REPORTS)

Question again proposed, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question.

6.12 p.m.

Mr. Pavitt: I am grateful for the respite, because it has enabled my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross) to inform me that, while my knowledge of the drug industry is not too bad, my arithmetic is shaky, because 2,400 representatives and 22,000 general practitioners means one in 10, not one in 100. That makes the case even more startling than the one I deployed.
On the question of promotion it is true, as an hon. Member opposite said, that there is a code. I have it here. It is a code on sales promotion of medical specialities in the United Kingdom. It is commendable that the industry has produced a code of this kind. It is interesting to see that last year there were 959 decisions on advertising copy and 232 on labels, etc., making a total of 1,191 cases adjudicated under the code, but there is no teeth in it. There is no question of sanctions or any suggestion of action arising. It is put forward loosely and no one knows whether in fact the code is effective.
On the voluntary price scheme, reorganised in January, 1961, I hope we shall hear in the winding-up speech whether it provides a criterion of prices which prevail abroad, whether it is the highest or the average price among a number of countries. I ask that because I am well aware that in certain circumstances where there are import licences in foreign countries the number of drugs going in may be extremely small and they may be in scarce supply. For this reason, there may be inflated prices, and a manufacturer may wish to use that as a means of making his voluntary price too high for the drug for the first three years after its inception.
The hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Arbuthnot) said that one of the ways of getting prices down was competition. My hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras, North underlined that by Section 41 being used the Minister could


consider if it is possible to have patented drugs manufactured under compulsory licences. If this were done, the Government could themselves go into competition with the drug houses. In view of the fact that we are such large consumers of the commodity, it might bring "a healthy breath of competition"—in the words of the hon. Member for Dover—if there were a drug house publicly owned and controlled and able to break some of the patents which at the moment make drugs so expensive, competing with private industry.
I should like to endorse every word which was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central about the problems of chemists having to stock about 3,000 items of different kinds. This makes it almost imperative to substitute from time to time. It seems to me reasonable, in view of the cost which the public has to pay, that there should be some narrowing of this range. There are far too many variants which are only slight variations on basic commodities in which therapeutically no great difference emerges.
I turn to two other points in the Reports of the Public Accounts Committee. I was concerned about the loss of £117,000 as a result of the way in which the Regulations on pay beds had been operated in teaching hospitals. The Regulations were issued in 1957, but it was not until the 1961 Report that we find that they have been inadequately understood and that, as a result, £117,000 has been lost to the taxpayer. It seems that there are two different rules, one of them for the teaching hospitals. I bow to no one in my respect for their work, and I say that particularly at this moment when my wife is recovering in one of them from a major operation, but it is time that we decided not to let the teaching hospitals have quite so much freedom with cash and thought a little more about the regional hospitals, which do such a vast amount of work and which should be raised to parity. I am not seeking to bring down the teaching hospitals but to raise the regional hospitals to provide the same type of service. In any case, there is no reason for losing £117,000 because of an inadequate understanding of Regulations put out five years ago.
A comment has been made from a number of quarters on the stickiness of the drug manufacturers in negotiating. I hope that as a result of the Public Accounts Committee's Reports and this debate, the Minister of Health will start getting sticky and tough on these matters. Those hon. Members who lived through the heavy debates in 1961 know how tough the Minister of Health can be. We should like to see him using some of the same toughness in saving the taxpayer's money on the lines which the Public Accounts Committee has so thoroughly discussed and urged.

6.18 p.m.

Sir Colin Thornton-Kemsley: I had not wanted to follow hon. Members who have spoken about the section of the Report of the Public Accounts Committee—of which I am a member—which deals with drugs, and I wondered how I could make some reference to the speech of the hon. Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt) without an incursion into that subject. When he told us that his wife was in hospital, recovering from a major operation, I thought that at least I should sincerely—and, I am sure, on behalf of all hon. Members—wish her a speedy recovery.
I want to welcome the fact that the Government have followed at least two of the recommendations of the Public Accounts Committee in their current legislation. In our 1960–61 Report we investigated the effect of unduly low rents for local authority houses in Scotland upon the aggregate Exchequer Equalisation Grant. I remember standing here about a year ago and making a reference to that section of the Report. We recommended that housing deficits which were due to the charge of unduly low rents should be excluded from the calculations of Exchequer grants. I am sure that we were all glad to notice that the Government had decided to implement the sense of this recommendation in the Local Government (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Bill, which is at present before the House, their solution being to base the grant not upon actual rent but upon the gross annual value of local authority houses as assessed for rating purposes, less a percentage deduction.
The other respect in which the Government are at present implementing one of the Committee's recommendations—this time one of our current recommendations—is in relation to the abuse of the lime subsidy. The agricultural lime scheme provides that 65 per cent. of the cost of acquiring, carrying and spreading lime on farmland in order to improve the fertility of the soil should be reclaimed from the Government. There have been a number of cases of fraud arising from this scheme, very often involving collaboration between farmers and merchants. These include inflated weights and the delivery of substances which were not lime—in some cases gravel, in another case coal. In one case in Yorkshire, which was before the courts when the Public Accounts Committee discussed the matter, it was even alleged that whisky, cigars and gin had been supplied by merchants instead of lime.
In paragraph 74 the Committee expressed the strong hope that
a vigorous and comprehensive procedure for verification of claims will be introduced at an early stage.
The Government acted very quickly upon that. Section 5 of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, which is before the House, gives power for the registration of merchants and the inspection of books. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture said on Second Reading,
This arises directly out of an examination carried out by the Public Accounts Committee some while ago…"—(OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st November, 1962; Vol. 667, c. 1239.]
My hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Arbuthnot), to whom so many hon. Members have rightly paid tribute for the quality and comprehensiveness of the speech with which he opened the debate, called attention to the wide scope of the work of the Public Accounts Committee. I have picked out for remark a few matters of comparatively minor importance, not so far referred to in debate, as an indication that the Committee are not concerned merely with the major matters. We do not have regard only, for example, to the fact that the estimated cost of the Blue Streak missile increased from £12·5 million to an eventual £60 million or even, as might be inferred from the number of hon. Members who have referred to it this afternoon, to the drug section of the

Report. The Committee is always conscious of the fact, as we say in Scotland, that
Ilka mickle mak's a muckle
which I may interpret for the benefit of the uninitiated, "Look after the pennies and the pounds will look after themselves."
There was the story of the losses on an experimental farm. In 1947 or 1948—I forget which—the Ministry of Agriculture thought that it would be a good idea to conduct a large-scale experiment in mechanised farming in Anglesey and, having no funds themselves for this purpose, the Ministry succeeded in 'selling the idea to the Development Commission which, in turn, persuaded the Commission to authorise a grant of £113,700 from the Development Fund for the purchase at a premium of £11,000 of a 99-year lease of an estate of 1,200 acres at a rental of 20s. per acre per annum.
A company was formed to equip and farm the land, and it commenced its farming operations in May, 1951. Nine years later the losses had amounted to £54,000, excluding any provision for interest on capital, and the amount outstanding, including the initial capital cost and subsequent advances, was in excess of £200,000. It is true that a profit was made in 1961, before charging interest on the capital debt of £200,000, but after ten years the experiment has been recognised officially, after investigation by independent experts, to be a failure, the independent experts having drawn attention to the extravagant use of labour, excessive administrative expenses and over-capitalisation.
But haw to bring this unhappy experiment to an end? That is the question. It would be possible to sell back the equipment and the stock, but there would still remain the question of the disposal of the lease, for which so large a premium was paid. To further certain experiments which it was intended to carry out, buildings had been erected on the land of a character and to a scope which would have been far greater than would be required for normal farming operations, and the Committee were advised that there was very little hope of avoiding a substantial loss on the transaction. It seemed to the Committee that it might be better for the company to continue to farm the land on orthodox,


as opposed to experimental, lines, with a view to reducing the losses, but the Ministry and the Development Commission have both decided that the time has came to cut the loss and to sell.
I mention this because to my mind the significance lies in the fact that the Ministry of Agriculture, who wanted to push the idea of an experimental farming project, were not only able to convince the Development Commission that the idea was good but were called upon by the Treasury to advise the commissioners whether it would be wise to sanction the advance. The Treasury witness told us in answer to Question No. 4720,
This is a rather antiquated piece of machinery.
This case has revealed the need for the Government to look carefully at both the statutory relationships between the Development Commission and the Treasury and the procedure by which the Ministry of Agriculture can virtually instigate a project of this kind, and then wash its hands of its administration.
From the Ministry of Agriculture I want to turn briefly to the allocation of catering contracts at certain Army establishments. In 1958 or 1959, the War Office decided to initiate an experiment in letting contracts for messing under an arrangement by which the caterers would take over the cookhouses, the ration stores, messes, and so on, and would themselves provide the food and the staff. For its part, the War Office would provide the fuel, the light and the accommodation.
The War Office invited competitive tenders on a daily per capita basis and, as a result, it let a tender at the Command Ordnance Depot at Didcot to a civilian caterer, and a similar contract at the Command Ordnance Depot, Donnington, to the N.A.A.F.I., on the basis of a provisional price to be adjusted in the light of the actual cost. As a result of the experiment, the Army Council decided that contract catering should be adopted as the normal practice in certain suitable static establishments in the United Kingdom, and two further contracts were placed by competitive tender with commercial firms, and two without competition with the N.A.A.F.I. In the event, the N.A.A.F.I. prices, in

which no allowance was made for commercial profits, were appreciably higher than those of the commercial firms.
The practice of allocating half the contracts by tender to commercial firms, and half without tender to the N.A.A.F.I. was followed until 1960, when it became clear that the N.A.A.F.I. was consistently more expensive than the commercial firms. The War Office appears to be anxious—understandably so, I think—that the N.A.A.F.I. should retain a share of the contract catering trade in order to gain experience of it, and it wants to see more contracts allotted to the N.A.A.F.I. in order to give continued experience in this type of business.
In questions to a witness from the War Office, I ventured to suggest a way in which this might be done without loss to Army funds. As I hope that this matter may be pursued, perhaps I may be forgiven if I repeat the questions I asked—they are not very long—and the answers I received. I asked, in Questions Nos. 3475 and 3476:
Where you have contracts on an ascertained cost basis, as you have with N.A.A.F.I., what incentive is there to economy?—Only the incentive of good management and this is one of the problems in this field. That is the only incentive. There is no external incentive in that their costs are being met. Of course, in this case the fact that their costs have worked out so high has forced us to adopt a different policy from the one we had originally conceived. It has lost them business.
3476. No one has ever tried to work out a scheme under which, for example, if you can save 3d. a day on the contract price for messing, 1d. of that 3d. would go back to Army funds, 1d. to the troops in the way of better meals and 1d. to the contractor?—No, I cannot say that we have tried to devise a scheme like that.
I still hope that an attempt on those lines may be made.
Before leaving the Army and N.A.A.F.I., I want to mention our investigations into the question of the Winter-berg leave centre in Germany, managed by N.A.A.F.I., which has been running at a loss, which, in 1960–61, amounted to £65,000—representing a subvention of about 28s. per visitor per day.
When, in 1955, the Treasury had approved the arrangements for overseas leave centres, it had stipulated that if any particular centre seemed to be uneconomic, consideration should be given to returning it to Army control, and to


closing it down. This had not happened in this case, and the Committee found that only 6·6 per cent. of Service and civilian families in Germany were using the Winterberg centre, of which by far the greatest users were officers and their families, who outnumbered the other ranks and their families visiting that centre by nearly two to one.
In the light of these and other figures which it elicited, the Public Accounts Committee recommended that the War Office's intention to continue the centre in operation till April, 1964 should be reconsidered, and I have been glad to see from the Treasury Minute that, on our recommendation and that of the Treasury, supporting it, the War Office has decided to close this leave centre as soon as possible.
I pass over the astonishing story of the plaster that would not stick on the ceiling of a barrack block in, I think, Wiltshire, resulting in an additional payment of £122,500 by the War Office, since I want, in conclusion, to refer to the fees of consulting architects, engineers and quantity surveyors employed by regional boards on hospital contracts. In some cases, regional boards—which, in connection with the erection of new hospitals are able to place very substantial contracts, indeed—have negotiated a reduction in fees with the professional advisers, but both the Ministry of Health and the Department of Health for Scotland regard it as preferable—and in this I think that they are right—that negotiations should be conducted at the national level with the professional associations concerned rather than that local arrangements should be made.
The intention was, and the Committee recognised this, to try to find scales that would, on the one hand, make due allowance for repetitive work, and, on the other, provide for a tapering-off of fees on very large schemes—which is already provided for, I am told, in the case of quantity surveyors. This suggestion was welcomed by the Committee, and the Treasury Minute informs us that negotiations on fees are continuing. Though the Public Accounts Committee did not take cognisance of this fact, similar negotiations are going on with the officials of the Ministry of Public Building and Works and the Service Departments at

what might be called chief quantity surveyor level.
No one wants to see the professional men, whose services are in great demand in private practice, as they are in the public service, browbeaten into accepting a scale of fees which is not remunerative and at which the best men will not be attracted to the professions concerned. There is a real need for agreement by all branches of government who are concerned in letting large building contracts, about the scale of fees they are justified in paying to outside practitioners, and I trust that agreement on all these matters, in which the ball is at present in the Government's court, may not long be delayed.

6.40 p.m.

Mr. James Boyden: If the plaster contractors did not succeed in getting the plaster to stick to the roof of the barracks, I am sure that the Public Accounts Committee has succeeded in getting its criticisms to stick on the administration of all public Departments, and as a student for 30 years—at a very respectful distance—of the Committee, I should like to pay tribute to its efficiency and zeal. I regard its contribution to public administration as of the highest order, and I compliment my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) the Chairman of the Committee, the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Arbuthnot), and of course my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Sir G. Benson) who I think was probably on the Committee when I first began to study its Report, on the work they have done.
I want to follow the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley) in reference to professional fees. I think that the Committee has uncovered a good deal of remissness in the Ministry of Health and, for that matter, in other Government Departments. I should have thought that it was as much in the interests of the architects, quantity surveyors, and civil engineers, to have reasonable fees for their work as it was in the public interest that these should not be excessive, and I agree with the hon. Gentleman when he hopes that all public departments will look into this and speedily get agreement with professional bodies.
I think that the Ministry of Health is particularly to blame. I think the very fact that architects and engineers could,


as it were, have held the Department up to ransom should have put the Department on its guard and made it start negotiations a considerable time ago. To a considerable extent the pay pause of the right hon. and learned Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd) has been responsible for a lot of inefficiency in the professional services of the hospital boards, not because of any lack of zeal or intelligence on the part of the board's officials, but because the boards have not been able to secure enough staff in their own offices and have had to put out to private architects and private civil engineers probably more than they would have wished to do.
I remember from my hospital board experience the days when salary negotiations in the public sector dragged on month after month and when the hospital boards wore losing architects and civil engineers and having great difficulty in filling vacancies. This reveals a considerable lack of planning and interest in the long-term building programmes of the hospitals. One can also point to the Government's lack of appreciation of the need for more professional people being trained in the universities and in colleges of advanced technology, and I think that the Ministry of Health particularly must carry a heavy responsibility for bad administration of those architects it had, that is, bad co-ordination between private architects and architects and engineers in the Department, and for an insufficient appreciation of the problem of long-term hospital planning.
A recent publication by The Builder draws attention to the lack of sufficient architects with knowledge and experience of hospital design. My hospital board in Newcastle has done a certain amount in this respect. It has run courses and held exhibitions in hospital design, but I am sure that throughout the country as a whole there is no question but that there is a shortage of architects and engineers familiar with the complicated needs of hospitals, and not enough is being done to see that those needs are being met.
I leave that and turn to an item which seems to merit considerable attention, namely, the purchase of the general anæsthetic fluothane about which the Committee made some very strong recommendations on page xxx. The Report reveals that one regional hospital

board which was taking a considerable quantity of this anæsthetic tried to get a reduction in price from the monopoly manufacturers, I.C.I., and failed. But apparently the Ministry of Health knew nothing about the attempt to get a reduction in price, nor did it come to the notice of officials aft the Ministry until June, 1961.
This anæsthetic has been used in the hospital service in increasing quantities since 1957. In 1958 £146,000 worth was bought. In 1959 the figure rose to £335,000. In 1960 it reached over half a million pounds. In 1961 it approached three quarters of a million pounds, and it appears that the total expenditure this year will be more than that. It seems extraordinary that, although this item was being extensively used in the hospital service, no attempt had been made to negotiate a reasonable contract price with a monopoly, and well over £1,000,000 worth had been bought before the Ministry of Health took action.
When the Ministry began negotiations for a central contract incorporating a costing clause, it ran into difficulties with I.C.I. which refused, and as far as I know still refuses, to disclose its books and to agree to negotiate on the same basis as that adopted by other drug firms. Although the Ministry of Health, thanks to the prodding of the Public Accounts Committee, has secured a fairly substantial reduction in the cost, this reduction can be only a guess, because when the Chairman of the Committee questioned an official of the Ministry about this, the reply he received was:
One has to take a view on this, Sir. We have not, of course, done so thorough an investigation of the I.C.I. costs as we have of some of the other cases. We have, on the other hand, secured a substantial reduction in price, and, as I say, we have also secured the promise of a further one to come. We consider that is about the best we can do for the moment.
It seems to me that if I.C.I. in 1959, or indeed in 1958, could sell 33,000 litre bottles at £10 a bottle, it could, in 1961, by the sale of 70,000 bottles, have given the Health Service a greater reduction than it did and is doing.
This matter is still under discussion. We heard from my hon. Friend the


Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson) that there is no question of retrospection. I.C.I. is therefore almost certainly going to make a larger profit than the public interest demands, and I hope that when the Financial Secretary winds up the debate he will answer these points.
Have compulsory powers been taken to investigate the books of I.C.I. in relation to fluothane, and has this investigation revealed what sort of profits I.C.I. has been making in the past? Alternatively, is I.C.I. now agreeable to the costings clause being inserted in its contract for the supply of this anaesthetic? What other similar commodities are there in the hospital service? It seems to me that when the Public Accounts Committee probed this matter other items supplied on a fairly substantial basis might not have been investigated.
Finally, is it possible to introduce an element of competition, presumably not in England, but by importing quantities of this commodity from abroad? I understand that Halothane is manufactured in Frankfurt. It may be that Fluothane is a subsidiary of Halothane. [Interruption.] I understand that they are one and the same thing. Whatever the situation is, cannot a foreign tender be invited in order to bring about competition in tendering?
This situation is unsatisfactory, and it comes ill from a firm like I.C.I., which always sets out to be a leader in good public relations and has good factory conditions, that it should be so tough over a matter concerning the public interest. I beg the Treasury to look into this very carefully and to see if it can bring about a situation which will satisfy the Public Accounts Committee and the public.

6.42 p.m.

Mr. Gordon Walker: I join those who have thanked the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Arbuthnot) for the admirable way in which he opened the debate and the very fair, courageous and appropriate speech which he made for this special kind of debate. This is an unusual occasion because the two parties are not ranged against one another. The debate was opened by one back bencher and will in effect be closed by another. The purpose of it is to sup-

port the great work which the Public Accounts Committee does.
Unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Boyden), I have not been a long student of the Public Accounts Committee, to my regret, and I must admit, with some shame, that until this debate I had never really read its Report and had not appreciated how much we owe to the 15 hon. Members who, on our behalf, work so devotedly and selflessly on it, almost always reaching unanimous decisions. On this occasion, the Committee had no less than 29 meetings and asked 4,818 questions. It probed things large and small, as the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley) said.
I have been much impressed by the clear evidence that the Committee's work has a great effect on the action, efficiency and economy of Departments of State. In this day and age, it is impossible for Parliament as a whole to carry out properly its traditional, age-old and honourable work of watching the public purse. It has to be done on our behalf by the hon. Members who form this Committee, and I am sure that all of us, regardless of party, are extremely grateful to them for what they have done.
We have discussed various matters, some of them small, as is proper. Some of the things which attracted my attention when reading the Reports for the first time and many of the questions asked are very illuminating because they are not referred back to in the Reports. They are referred to only if they disclose something to which attention should be drawn. Things like the plaster which did not stick, and the bankrupt butcher, I found fascinating as a real example of the way in which we keep an eye on how Ministers spend our money.
When it came to the big things, most hon. Members today spoke about drug prices. My hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson) made a quiet but trenchantly argued speech which was, I thought, devastating in its logic. It was backed up and broadened by speeches from other of my hon. Friends, including the hon. Members for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross), Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt) and Bishop Auckland.
I want to turn to what I regard as an equally important issue, which has been hardly mentioned at all, except by the hon. Member for Dover, and I agreed with everything that he said about it. I refer to certain aspects of the activities of the Ministry of Aviation. It is clear, and fair to say, that the Ministry of Aviation comes out worst of all the Departments of State which came under the scrutiny of this year's Public Accounts Committee. It has shown itself to be defective in the control of expenditure over a fairly wide and worrying range of things. A number of defects were shown.
It is clear—and I am sorry that the Treasury Minute did not fully support this, although it went a long way towards doing so—that it is important to have better checks on sub-contractors. We cannot rely solely on the main contractor because, as the Committee says, his interests are not sufficiently engaged to secure what the Ministry hoped would result from its method. The Treasury Minute supports the Public Accounts Committee in this, and I am pleased about that.
It is desirable to put some time factor into these contracts and to attach a penalty to them. This is extremely important, and I am sorry that the Treasury Minute does not altogether go along with the Committee on it. I trust that next year and, if necessary, the year after the Committee will concentrate on this, because it is important.
Blue Steel is largely past history. I understand that it is in delivery to the Royal Air Force. I do not know whether the Financial Secretary can tell us what the development cost was by the time it came into operation. I know that we are not allowed to know the production cost after it has become an operative weapon, but did the development cost go above the £60 million to which it had risen after the first estimate of only £12½ million?
My main interest is in the wireless set about which the hon. Member for Dover spoke. This Report is the most blistering indictment of a Department that I have ever read in an official and serious Report—I do not mean in the Daily Mirror, something like that. The facts of this matter are extraordinary. Eight firms

were asked to put in tenders. The contract was awarded, as the Report says in paragraph 63, to the firm which quoted the highest price for development and the second highest overall price.
This was firm A, which is generally understood to be Plessey; it is now, I think, an open secret. Later, and after the other firms' tenders had been rejected, the price was reduced by 20 per cent., after the others were out of the field. Even then the Plessey price was considerably higher than that contained in several of the other tenders. Plessey also gave a later delivery date than any of its competitors.
I have formed the overwhelming impression, from reading the Report very carefully, that the Ministry was determined to award this contract to Plessey. I do not say that this is true, but the impressions which fair-minded men get are very important, almost as important as the intent. The impression was that there was a determination from very early on, if not from the beginning, to award this contract to Plessey.
The evidence for that is that the Ministry went on previous experience which was not, so to speak, borne on the face of the tenders—previous experience of the firms which they asked to tender and which was, in the end, largely used to rule out five of the six firms which were asked to tender. It therefore went on considerations extraneous to the contracts and also on the technical appreciations of each firm although it did not make it mandatory on the firms to include a technical appreciation when they tendered.
Finally, the main factor in the decision was the Ministry's own decision about how long it would take each firm to make the weapon. It did not make it mandatory on them to produce proper evidence of that. This was so extraordinary that the hon. Member for Dover, in Question No. 2962, felt himself compelled to go as far as to ask:
In view of the nation-famous and, indeed, world-famous names of the firms concerned"—
that is, the firms which lost the contract—
are you completely satisfied in your own mind that no question of dishonesty has taken place in the awarding of this contract?
In fact, no allegation of dishonesty is made, or was intended to be made, by


the hon. Gentleman, but the fact that he was so amazed by what had happened that he had even to consider this possible explanation shows how extraordinary was this procedure. I would say that, looking at the facts, one has a choice either of saying that there was dishonesty at work, or that there was very grave incompetence. The Public Accounts Committee comes down, of course, in favour of the second explanation, that there was very grave incompetence. It uses extremely strong language. In paragraph 67, the Report flatly says that the Minister used "faulty procedure". This is very strong language to use. In paragraph 69, it states:
…in this case competitive tendering proved to be a farce.
These are words not lightly used in public documents.
The Report raises directly one question which has much concerned me and other hon. Members lately. It throws some light upon and raises certain aspects of the question of how far civil Servants, if not Ministers, in Departments like the Ministry of Aviation ought to go into private industry before the lapse of a certain period after they leave their official employment.
The reason I say this is that the Ministry of Aviation, in evidence and in the answers which it gave to certain questions, and the Treasury Minute, assumed—and I think, so does the Public Accounts Committee—that a wide element of discretion must be allowed in the Ministries concerned—in this case the Ministry of Civil Aviation—in awarding contracts. For example, especially with complicated developments like wireless sets and new weapons, one cannot reduce the thing solely to price, and, therefore, there must be a wide element of discretion in the awarding of the final very profitable contract. If this is so, and I think that it is inescapably so, it is absolutely essential that complete impartiality shall be seen to have been observed all through this by those who make public decisions on our behalf and are answerable to us.
This appearance of impartiality, as well as the reality of impartiality, must not be retrospectively impugned by the action of those who, on our behalf and under our control, take these decisions.

If people who have to take, or share in taking, these decisions, which bring great rewards to some companies and deprive others of those rewards, are seen publicly to be taking immediately after they leave their public office positions of trust, importance and responsibility in one or other of these companies, this must throw some doubt on the appearance of the impartiality of those people. That is the first reason. The Reports show that that is now an inescapable conclusion, because the factor of discretion is built into our present method of placing orders for developing weapons and unknown things of which there has been no previous experience.
Even more important, as the Report of the Public Accounts Committee makes absolutely clear, is that Departments of State, like the one that we are discussing, must acquire an intimate knowledge of many firms and their inside working. This is the only way in which one can make the whole contract system work. For instance, Question No. 2758, put by my right hon. Friend the Member for Huron (Mr. H. Wilson), asked about the facilities that could be demanded of firms to make sure that their costing was right and all that sort of thing.
The answer which, I think, is proper and night, but which leads to grave conclusions, was that these facilities
…include the access to the works of those who enter into contracts, the opportunity to inspect the books of the firms with which we have entered into contracts, our own accountants, technical costs officers and the like, following up these opportunities. In the case of the larger contracts we are establishing our own technical staff in the works to keep oversight over the project.
That seems to be necessary. I do not see how one can check costs and all the rest of it without doing that, but if one does that it means that officials get a knowledge of firms and their inner working Which would be of the greatest possible benefit to their competitors. Then, if, having got the knowledge of a number of these firms, they serve in one of them immediately after leaving office, this carries with it an improper knowledge of the competitors of that firm which they have acquired only because they were public servants. This seems to me an extremely important factor in terms of fair competition between firm


and firm. Leaving alone the public aspect of this matter, this seems to me to be wrong. This goes over and above any advantage which a firm might get because someone it employed knew what the future plans of the Department over a year or two would be.
Looking at all these things, I think that one of the conclusions we have to draw from the Report is this. Just because relations between Government and industry are now growing more and more intimate—they must grow more and more intimate, as we have seen, one cannot get the cost accounting and all the rest unless there is interpenetration between representatives of the Government, the Civil Service and business—it is more important than it has ever been before to draw the line clearly where we stop the people who have acquired this sort of knowledge as agents on behalf of the State exercising what are naturally the rights of other people, namely, to go wherever they like in private employment.
This raises very grave matters and I think that this Report furnishes evidence enough by itself, without further considerations, of the need for a very thorough inquiry—maybe by a Joint Select Committee, I do not know—into the whole difficult problem of what kind of civil employment it is proper for Ministers, for high civil servants and for Service officers acting in Departments of State like civil servants, to take up and after what interval. I do not think that we can leave this where it now is.
One thing that struck me in reading this very valuable Report is that the Public Accounts Committee naturally addresses itself to accounting officers. As the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain) pointed out, accounting officers are curious creatures. They have two hats. Under one they are responsible to the Public Accounts Committee, and under the other are responsible to Ministers and, therefore, directly to us. This is a very important thing. We must never forget, as one tends to in reading this Report, because it is all in terms of Civil Service officials answering questions, that behind all this lies ministerial responsibility.
When the Public Accounts Committee passes very strong remarks on a Department and we endorse it, in effect, by

taking note of this Report, we—and we must never forget this—are passing judgment on what may be a set of Ministers over a period who are responsible for all the things that happen in their Departments, and particularly the big things—faulty procedures and systems that reduce the purpose of the system to a farce. Ministers themselves are responsible for things of that kind.
I should like to finish as I began, by saying that these are extremely valuable Reports. I know that I speak for hon. Members on both sides of the House when I say how grateful we are to the Committee and to its Chairman, my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson), for the extraordinarily good work that they do year by year, and the extraordinarily good work they have done in this particular year in the Reports which are now before us.

7.10 p.m.

Sir George Benson: Two questions have been asked in the debate to which I think I can give the answer. The first is the question of the appointment of the Comptroller and Auditor General. His is a Crown appointment. It is an appointment by Royal Warrant and he is dismissable only by Resolution of both Houses of Parliament. The idea of this limitation on his dismissal is to make sure that he is entirely independent of everybody but Parliament.
I have been a member of the Public Accounts Committee for over thirty years and I have seen some remarkable changes. When I first became a member our Parliamentary expenditure was about £800 million a year and it was repetitive. Year after year the same amounts were spent on the same things by the same Departments. Our whole activity as a Public Accounts Committee was to improve little technical points of accountancy and procedure.
In 1930–31, my first year on the Committee, the Report ran to 21 sections and it was critical of four Departments. Last year our expenditure had jumped from £800 million to over £6,000 million, with large swings in expenditure, and instead of 24 sections of criticism we had 182. We were far more critical in our attitude to the Departments last year than we were when I first became


a member. We were concerned not so much with technical points as with the much more important matter of how efficient was the administration of the Departments.
I am glad to say that for many years the Public Accounts Committee has issued unanimous Reports. That means that the Opposition offered valid and serious criticism and the Government members of the Committee were not prepared to condone mistakes by their own Government. I admit that on occasions unanimity has been rather difficult to obtain. I remember one occasion when I was Chairman when I sat up until after midnight wrestling with two members of the Conservative Party who wanted to slam their own Government more severely that I thought necessary. The two hon. Members are sitting opposite now.
I think that that is a good example of the really objective approach which the Public Accounts Committee has developed over many years. This unanimity—and we are a unanimous Committee—has been helped very largely by the stability of the membership of the Committee. The average service of the six senior members is fourteen years each, which is very good. During those fourteen years we have learned to work together as a team.
Last year, during our debate, the then hon. Member for Dorset, South remarked that Civil Estimates were a good deal higher than they were some years ago. That is perfectly true, but that is not something that can be put at the door of the Public Accounts Committee. The people who decide the height of the Civil Estimates are the Members of the House of Commons as a whole and not the Public Accounts Committee. It was a misconceived criticism.
Moreover, it is not the function of the Public Accounts Committee to curtail expenditure. Let that be fully understood. The curtailment and limitation of expenditure rests with the House of Commons. What we on the Committee are concerned with is to see that it is spent in accordance with the instructions of the House of Commons. Our activities are always a post-mortem on the expenditure of the previous year. We have two duties to fulfil. The first is to see brat expenditure is strictly in

accordance with the intention of Parliament. The second is to inquire whether it has been efficient and economical.
Last year an hon. Member whom I will not name said that our Report was "a sorry record of human error, failure and mismanagement over a large field". Of course it was. That is what we are there for. We have a Comptroller and Auditor General who has a staff of 500 accountants working steadily throughout the year inside the Departments, reading their correspondence, poking their noses into every conceivable file, solely for the purpose of finding out, first, whether the expenditure has been as agreed by Parliament, and, secondly, whether it has been managed efficiently.
When we look at the Report which they succeed in producing and realise what a small fraction of the £6,000 million comes under their criticism, I think that it will be agreed that we have a very fine account of the efficiency of our Departments. Where a Department is not criticised, that does not mean that it has been neglected. It means that there is nothing to criticise, and the great majority of our Departments are not criticised. Looking back over the many years I have been a member of the Committee, I still find my admiration for the integrity, the efficiency and the ability of our civil servants growing year by year.

7.19 p.m.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Anthony Barber): As my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Arbuthnot) reminded the House in his opening speech, this is now the third annual occasion on which we have discussed the Reports of the Public Accounts Committee, under the arrangements made by my right hon. Friend the First Secretary of State for giving the House more opportunities for debating the control of public expenditure.
First, I should like to congratulate the right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) on becoming once again Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee. I understood that he had another engagement this evening to which he had to go, but in view of the way the debate has gone I am delighted to see that, after all, he has been able to be with us.

Mr. H. Wilson: The engagement was cancelled because of the weather.

Mr. Barber: No doubt to some extent because of the weather we shall all be going home a little earlier this evening.
There are not many occasions on which an Amendment can be moved with equal appropriateness either by an hon. Member from the Opposition or by one of my hon. Friends. I was glad that on this occasion it fell to my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Arbuthnot) to carry out this duty. It is a just recognition of his own conscientious contribution to the work of the Committee. In due course I shall be referring to some of the matters that he raised, but first I want to say that I agree with a great deal of what he has said, especially about the relationship between the Public Accounts Committee and the Treasury.
In carrying out its task the Committee has always adopted a dispassionate and bi-partisan approach, and it is this aspect, perhaps more than anything else, which gives the Committee and its Reports authority and weight. I am glad that, notwithstanding some fairly pungent comments—some of which I shall shortly refer, to—the debate has been thoughtful and constructive. There was one exception, to which I shall also refer.
The way in which these debates are conducted is important for two reasons. First, a party political approach is quite incompatible with the way in which the Public Accounts Committee carries out its work. It concentrates on the Reports of the Comptroller and Auditor General. By lengthy and painstaking examination, some of which has been referred to this afternoon—the examination of accounting, officers and departments, not forgetting the Treasury—the Committee seeks the truth as it sees it.
The second reason is that one of the main objectives of the Committee nowadays is to pursue value for money—and that is not a party matter. No doubt there may be differences of opinion between the two sides of the House as to the optimum pattern of public spending, but we are all agreed that what we want to do is to get value for money. Nowadays it is trite to talk about the enormous range and cost of public activities, but what is perhaps not so keenly appreciated

is that the running of a large Government Department poses many of the problems, often in acute form, which beset other large organisations, whether private enterprise or public enterprise. The acid test of the private sector—the ability to make a profit and to stay in business—is absent, and it is right that we should therefore take special care and take every precaution to ensure that we get value for money in the public sector.

Mr. H. Wilson: Something which the hon. Gentleman said might be capable of misunderstanding. I am sure that he did not mean to say it. He said that the Committee mainly addresses itself to the Reports of the Comptroller and Auditor General. I hope that he will not leave out of account the many occasions in which the initiative is taken by the Committee itself, and when the Comptroller and Auditor General, usually at the request of the Committee, does some further investigation. This afternoon the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Arbuthnot) made it quite clear that apart from those occasions where the Comptroller and Auditor General's Reports form the basis of investigations, many quite important investigations are carried out on the initiative of the Committee, and not least in connection with accounts in respect of which there has been no Vote of the House. I am sure that the hon. Member does not want the point to be misunderstood.

Mr. Barber: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I certainly did not mean to imply that. I recognise that in many cases the initiative comes from the Committee itself.
I was saying that because of the absence of the profit motive in the public sector we have to take special care to replace it by other tests of performance. We have to try to ensure that the dispatch of public business, day by day, is as streamlined and efficient as that of a successful commercial enterprise. This must be achieved with full Parliamentary accountability.
I am talking about management. Management is not a very precise concept, but its meaning is well understood. Apart from decisions of policy, it covers pretty well everything in the running of a Government Department, and there are financial implications, direct or indirect,


in most decisions of management. We all want to secure the greatest efficiency in the running of the Government's business. Indeed, the recent reorganisation in the Treasury was directed to this end.
The Public Accounts Committee, together with the Estimates Committee, is the Parliamentary instrument for the same purpose. There can be no doubt that the Plowden Group was right in taking the view that external criticism of the kind that we have been discussing today is an essential spur to improvement. In this connection, I was interested to see the recent Report of the Canadian Royal Commission on Government Organisation. The Commissioners carried out a most detailed and exhaustive investigation into the organisation and methods of Canadian Government Departments, and made many recommendations about management which are very closely in line with our own thinking.
They, too, want to see more delegation of responsibility. As the House knows, this is precisely our own view. Incidentally, they were struck, too, with the great variety of public service occupation. After giving a number of striking illustrations of the extent of public services in Canada they said:
An element of mystery is created by the list of such intriguing occupations as insect sampling and rearing aides, negative operators, receivers of wrecks, scope watchers, and strippers and layouters.
We have our list of intriguing occupations. For instance, there is the Experimental Baker at the War Office, the Assistant for Drums at the Queen Victoria School, an animal technician, a deer stalker, and a bees officer (seasonal). I am not sure what our friends abroad would make of these occupations, although I heard the other day that my right hon. Friend who leads the United Kingdom delegation in the Brussels negotiations is known affectionately by the other representatives of the Six as "Le Lord du Sceau Privé".
The formal terms of reference of the Public Accounts Committee—
to examine such of the accounts laid before the House as it sees fit, and to report on them to the House
may seem rather narrow and technical. But it is clear from the Reports that they enable the Committee to delve deeply into all aspects of Departmental financial management and control. They may ex-

amine certain projects involving the spending of many millions of pounds, or look at Departmental practices in a quite general way, as, for example, when they consider the calculation and charging of overhead costs, or the presentation, in the form of commercial accounts, of a Department's trading policies and results.
But accounts are not ends in themselves. They seem to me to serve three distinct purposes. First, they provide information to Parliament and the public. Secondly, they help to ensure financial propriety. Thirdly, they are important aids to management. The Public Accounts Committee takes an interest in all three of these aspects; indeed, the Report now before the House, which we have been considering, contains examples of all three. There are, first, the recommendations, many of which have been accepted—one hon. Member said that he thought that of these Reports more of the recommendations of the Public Accounts Committee had been accepted than ever before—about the presentation of the financial results of the Atomic Energy Authority's various activities. As the Reports and the comments in the Treasury Minute show, the form of the accounts is intimately bound up with the nature of the different functions and the way in which different kinds of expenditure are recovered.
Secondly, there are matters of "propriety". What is usually in question here is whether Departments have spent their grants in accordance with Parliamentary authority, in specific legislation or in the Estimates. Here again, the Committee has brought to light one or two cases in which, through inadvertence rather than disregard of the constitutional proprieties, mistakes have undoubtedly been made. The recovery arrangements for the loans to claimants to Egyptian compensation money, and the Herring Board grants, are two examples.
It is fair to say that these questions of propriety formerly occupied most of the Committee's time and attention, but it is now primarily on financial management that the Committee concentrates, and I am sure that this is right. However, it has one effect which strikes me as being a little unfortunate. Some of the investigations of the Committee are based on the Reports of the Comptroller


and Auditor-General, and also on the various appropriation and other accounts. These Reports, notwithstanding the delightfully dispassionate and lucid terms in which they are written, naturally carry certain critical implications, which are clear enough to the discerning reader and may attract some publicity. The Committee examines, and later on publishes its own Report, which, as I think we can see from reading it, is likely to contain criticisms which are rather more explicit.
It is not until the third stage, in which the Treasury Minute is issued, that there is any opportunity of reply by Departments and the Treasury, so that the Executive suffers, as it were, two well-intentioned assaults before it has a chance to reply. I do not think that there is any easy way out of this; nor do I want to make too much of it, but I hope that hon. Members will at least reserve judgment until they have had the opportunity to read both sides.
It is not possible for me to answer all the points which have been raised in this debate. One has only to look at the vast range of subjects covered by the Third Report of the Committee to realise that this is not so. I should like to express my appreciation to my hon. Friend the Member for North Angus and Mearns (Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley) for drawing the attention of the House to certain matters of comparatively minor importance—I stress "comparatively"—which have not received quite the same blare of publicity as some others.
The work of the Public Accounts Committee is not confined to big issues, and considerable savings have resulted from the advice of the Committee on these other smaller matters. I was very interested in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain), and I agree with most of what he said. I was particularly pleased to hear his compliment to the Permanent Secretaries who appeared before the Public Accounts Committee.
It is, of course, the Committee's job to be critical, where it considers it to be justified, and this is all to the good, and I am sure that it is understood and accepted with good grace. I very much agree that the opportunity which the Committee's examinations provide for

direct contacts with Permanent Secretaries and other senior officials is much to be welcomed. It is one of the few ways in which Members of the House of Commons can acquire a detailed insight into the problems of Departmental administration and management.
If I may now turn to a matter which was mentioned both by the right hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) and by my hon. Friend the Member for Dover, it is that concerning research and development contracts. This is a very important subject, and, delving back into previous Reports of the Public Accounts Committee, we can see that it is one which is very familiar to the Committee and the House. It is inevitable, and indeed right, that it should have attracted attention and some criticism. These contracts have all the necessary ingredients to catch the eye of the Comptroller and Auditor General and to be dissected by the Public Accounts Committee.
In the first place, of course, most of these contracts are "cost-plus", because over much of the field this is inescapable from the very nature of development. Secondly, there are sometimes very large increases over the original tentative estimates, and, thirdly, very large sums are often involved in the development of military equipment which itself is frequently the subject of criticism.
Perhaps I should say at the outset that my right hon. Friend, and needless to say the Treasury, are determined to do everything possible to ensure that the estimating and control of these contracts is made as taut and efficient as possible in the face of what I am sure any clear-minded Member of the House would recognise as very great difficulties. I should like briefly to remind the House of the main problems and how we try to deal with them.
Two years ago, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Education, when he was Financial Secretary to the Treasury, said this:
What the Ministry of Aviation is now trying to do is to make sure about each step before going on to the next step. This starts with a precise definition of objectives, and the process goes on through feasibility studies and a fuller scale design study, from which emerges a detailed costing programme for the whole development."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th December, 1960; Vol. 632, c. 957.]


That summarises in simple terms an extremely complicated process, in which, admittedly, there is ample scope for matters to get out of hand unless the arrangements for control within Departments and their arrangements with contractors are absolutely watertight.
The general approach to control, providing for the reassessment of a project at defined stages, was confirmed by the Zuckerman Committee on the Management and Control of Research and Development, which reported to the Minister for Science in July of last year. It recommended that all defence projects involving the development of weapon systems should normally be processed through the stages of operational requirements, feasibility study, a project or design study, and, finally, development itself. A further recommendation by that Committee, that project studies should be carried out for all major projects before a development contract is placed, is a cardinal principle of the Department's system of control.
The Public Accounts Committee concentrated last Session on two aspects of this complex of problems—design or project studies and the product of such studies, that is, technical programmes. As regards the former, it stressed the importance of obtaining adequate competition when these studies are placed. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Dover that wherever it is possible competition is one of the most valuable means of obtaining alternative designs and of weighing their relative technical merits against their prices.
As I am sure my hon. Friend would be the first to agree, in this highly specialised field competition is not always practicable. For example, if an existing equipment is to be further developed, it is generally best to go to the firm which carried out the earlier work. Or there may be only one firm with the necessary expertise or potential, or, if there is more than one, some may be devoting their best efforts to other work. Similarly, as regards technical programmes, to which the Committee devoted some attention, because of the very nature of development work. There is a limit to the extent to which firms can be contractually bound to keep to the stipulated programme dates. I recognise the desirability of doing this,

and it seems to me to be obvious common-sense if it can be done.
In many cases, the contractors will seldom be free agents, because of the need for the Ministry—in this case, the Ministry of Aviation—to keep a close check and watch on their work, and because some setbacks and delays are often inevitable in development work and may arise for reasons quite outside the control of the contractor. Nevertheless, if his performance is unsatisfactory, and if it can be shown that this is within his own control, the Ministry's practice is to negotiate a reduced profit. A further factor is that a number of different firms may be concerned with the development of different parts of a major weapon system, and each is to some extent dependent on the others for the fulfilment of their own forecasts.
I was asked specifically to turn to another subject by my hon. Friend the Member for Dover, who referred to the affairs of Messrs. Bailey (Malta) Limited. I am afraid that in this I can only remind the House that the report of the independent investigator has been received by my right hon. Friend, who is now considering it, and I understand that he will make a statement to the House as soon as possible. I have no doubt that before then he will bear in mind what my hon. Friend has said.
The subject with which, I suppose, throughout this debate the House has been concerned more than any other is that of drugs. It was referred to at length by the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson) by my hon. Friend the Member for Dover, and my hon. Friend the Member for Barons Court (Mr. Compton Carr) and by several others who have spoken. This, again, is not a subject which is new, either to the Public Accounts Committee or to the House of Commons. In the Committee's last three Reports and in both the previous debates, a good deal of attention and not a little criticism has been given to the arrangements for keeping the drug bill down and also to keeping the price of individual drugs within reasonable limits.
All this time—and, indeed, before—the Ministry of Health has been negotiating with the drug firms on the basis of the voluntary price regulation scheme. I have


no doubt that the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North is absolutely right on one point. Many of the Committee's criticisms and the observations of hon. Members during our debates in this House have affected the course of the negotiations and, from the point of view of the Exchequer, have done so advantageously. I agree with the hon. Member on that.

Mr. H. Wilson: It is undoubtedly true that the Committee has played a big part in pressing the Ministry to take a different and less tolerant line on this expenditure. If the Minister is now lending his authority to what is a private view on my part—I do not know whether it is the view of the whole Committee—will he say what he thinks has been the total loss to the Exchequer by the fact that the Ministry did not act on its own initiative in cutting out avoidable expenditure but had to wait to be pushed year after year by the Committee and debates in this House before doing it? How many millions does the hon. Gentleman think have been lost in that way?

Mr. Barber: The right hon. Gentleman appears to misunderstand the point. I am suggesting that because, as we all know, in certain cases excessive prices have been charged, it must be a good thing for public opinion to be brought to bear on the whole subject and that this has been done most effectively by the Public Accounts Committee and by our debates in this House. I was merely agreeing with his hon. Friend in what, I thought, was in many ways a helpful and constructive speech.
The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross) had an altercation with my hon. Friend the Member for Barons Court on the extent to which there is competition in the industry. I hesitate to get involved, but I understand that the manufacture and supply of drugs takes place in what the economists used to call conditions of monopolistic competition. I make no claim to be a professional economist, but I take that to mean that elements of both competition and monopoly are present. The whole House would, I am sure, agree that undoubtedly there is strong competition between firms, both British and foreign, who devote intensive efforts to research with the object of promoting better and more effective

preparations and thereby, they hope also, more profitable preparations. At the same time, however, each proprietary preparation which may be prescribed has its special characteristics and is not, or is not always, freely interchangeable with other preparations. Many new products are patented.
The National Health Service is the main home buyer, either through the chemist or through the hospital. We depend for these supplies, as we must, on private industry, which cannot survive without adequate profits over the business as a whole. The duty of the Government is to ensure that this situation is not exploited to the taxpayers' disadvantage.
One method of approach would have been to seek detailed information on costs and profits to justify the price of every drug prescribed in any quantity under the National Health Service and to relate this information to predetermined criteria for judging what is reasonable cost and what is reasonable profit. That would have been an enormous task, even if appropriate criteria were ready to hand, which they were not. The approach has, therefore, been different.
The voluntary price regulation scheme, which was discussed at length by the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North, has been agreed with the industry. Under it, prices to chemists are in general accepted without investigation of costs and profits if they meet certain readily identifiable objective criteria, one of which, to which the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North referred, is that those prices are no higher than export prices. The hon. Member pointed out that the scheme was first introduced in 1957 and was re-negotiated only a couple of years ago, when, in the light of the experience in the initial three-year period, the criteria were considerably tightened up and a new proviso was inserted enabling the Government to challenge the prices of patented preparations with a big National Health Service usage even when they met the export criteria.
The scheme has produced many price reductions. In 1961, reductions were estimated to result in savings of about £1 million a year and further savings in 1962 are estimated to save another £1 million. Incidentally, one of the reductions taking effect this year is of


£130,000 a year for a drug manufactured by one of the Swiss companies, to which reference is made in the Committee's Report.
The Government do not, however, claim that as a result of the voluntary price regulation scheme, all drug prices are fair and reasonable. During the currency of the initial scheme, the Government themselves drew attention to published figures of profit on capital employed, which seemed extremely high by any standards. These figures were relevant to the revision of the scheme which was undertaken in 1960.
It is also relevant that, when they are themselves the purchasers, the Government have been able to secure patented drugs for hospitals alt markedly lower prices from suppliers other than the patentees. Since most of these drugs come within the proviso to the new scheme, enabling the Government to challenge prices for frequently-used patented products, they are a factor in the negotiations under the scheme.
In that connection, my hon. Friend the Member for Dover suggested that the Ministry should also investigate the prices of and the profits on the drugs supplied under the provisions of the Patents Act. I am not sure whether that would be appropriate. When the Government invite tenders for the supply of any products, it depends upon competition among suppliers to keep the price at a reasonable level. I am doubtful whether we could combine this normal approach with the special investigations into the costs and profits which are sometimes necessary when open tendering is impracticable.
I can, however, assure the Committee on that point. The hon. Member for St. Pancras, North quoted certain instances when, in his view, there had been undue delay in negotiations. I agree that on the face of it, some of them appear to have been lengthy. I assure him, however, having been in touch with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health concerning the matter, that despite the difficulties, my right hon. Friend will do everything he possibly can to ensure that there is no undue delay in negotiations.

Mr. H. Wilson: The hon. Gentleman must know, because the Committee reported on this aspect, that in some cases

one of the main factors in the delay, about which the Committee reported strongly last year, was the refusal of the firms concerned to give information when it was requested. This is intolerable. Having had experience of price control, we got the figure by compulsory powers, if necessary, and would not agree to a price being fixed until we had the figures.
Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that the Minister has all the powers which are necessary to enable him to get the figures? There was argument about this last year and the hon. Gentleman's predecessor had to qualify the answer which he gave in the debate. Secondly, does the Minister intend to use these powers? Will he undertake that there will be no delay due to the Minister's refusal to get the figures which he needs far the purpose of negotiation?

Mr. Barber: I am not an expert on this matter, but I understand that the compulsory powers are certainly in existence and are available for use to get the principal information which is necessary to be able to form a judgment in these matters. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that the powers will certainly be used if need be. The right hon. Gentleman will recognise that the basis of the voluntary price regulation scheme, and indeed of the Government's relations with the industry generally, is one of voluntary negotiation. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will be the first to recognise this. If we can obtain the information without using the powers, it is preferable, that we should do so. I can certainly give him the assurance that, if necessary, the powers will be used.

Mr. Wilson: The point was that last year I received exactly the same answer from the then Financial Secretary, who told us that he was satisfied that the Government had the powers. A few days later we had to arrange a special Question and Written Answer so that he could apologise for the information he gave to the House and point out that the Government had not the powers. That is why I asked the hon. Gentleman whether the Government now have the powers.

Mr. Barber: I have simply said—I can only repeat what I said a few moments ago to the right hon. Gentleman—that, as I understand the position, we have


compulsory powers to obtain the sort of information which is necessary to judge fairly in these matters. I was giving the right hon. Gentleman the assurance for which he asked that, if need be, we would use them. I thought that my hon. Friend the Member for Dover who, after all, has been universally applauded for his opening speech, was on a very good point when he stressed the desirability of good relations between the Ministry of Health and the industry. All that I am saying is that, while we will not hesitate to use these powers if necessary, it is obviously better that we should not do so if possible.
I turn to the question of advertising costs, which was raised by the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North and referred to by my hon. Friends the Members for Barons Court and Dover and others. I want to leave the House in no doubt on one point. The Government are concerned about the extent of the resources which some firms, but by no means all, have hitherto seen fit to lay out in this way. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Barons Court that advertising plays a perfectly legitimate and important part in the economy. I am sure that he will agree that this is a field in which high-pressure sales promotion is out of place and distasteful.
It might be suggested that one way of dealing with the problem would be for the Government to lay down just how much individual firms might spend on advertising. This approach is superficially attractive, but I do not think that it would be the right one and I was pleased to hear the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North also say that no Minister could dictate what a firm spends on promotional expenditure. After all, it is one thing to form an impression that advertising is excessive, but it is another to establish the criteria which could be used in the hard detail of negotiating to tell whether any particular expenditure was acceptable. We must always remember, again, that the scheme which the Government are operating is a voluntary one. To tell firms how much money they might spend on advertising would be incompatible with their right to run their business in the way in which they think fit.

Mr. K. Robinson: I went on to say that I thought that this did not mean that the National Health Service need pay for excessive advertising.

Mr. Barber: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. Indeed, I was just going on to say that what the Ministry of Health can do, and indeed does, is to bear the degree of sales promotion expenditure fully in mind when reaching settlements in negotiations on prices. This is an important factor which the Ministry quite rightly should take into account. Negotiation, after all, must be a matter of give and take, and negotiators must have discretion in deciding what terms to settle for. Where the Ministry considers that sales promotion costs are exceptionally high, it will be all the more determined to secure a reduction in price. This seems to me to be the common-sense approach.
Apart from the principles which guide the Ministry in negotiations, a further curb on excessive advertising is through the provision of information to doctors on the comparative costs and merits of different drugs. The Ministry issues the Prescriber's Journal to all general practitioners. I am told that it is clear from doctors' letters that many have found it of great use.
In conclusion on this point, I assure the House that we are at one with the Committee in its concern to ensure that expenditure on sales promotion is restrained. Here again, I feel that the observations of the Committee and what has been said today will strengthen our hand.
I want to say one word for the benefit of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central, in view of his great practical experience. He devoted most of his speech to the question whether there should be a change in the present system so as to permit chemists to provide drugs alternative to those prescribed where there is no essential difference between the two. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman would expect a mere Financial Secretary to give him an answer today on this point, but I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health will take note of what he said.
The hon. Member for St. Pancras, North asked me a number of specific questions about Section 46 of the Patents


Act, 1949. It is not within my personal knowledge, but I have done what I can to obtain the information for him. This is the answer to his first question about the contracts for the supply of five drugs to hospitals. He asked me whether those contracts were satisfactorily performed. The answer is, "Yes".
The second question which he asked concerned the quality of the drugs. Here again, I am told that the quality has been satisfactory in all respects. Thirdly, I should inform him that new contracts have been awarded for the same five drugs, in each case following competitive tenders. The hon. Gentleman also asked a question about the action by a United States company against the Minister of Health arising under Section 46 of the Patents Act, 1949. I understand that this action is expected to be heard this month.

Mr. K. Robinson: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for obtaining those answers for me. There is one further question: if this operation has been regarded as successful, is it intended to expand it during the coming year and, if not, why not?

Mr. Barber: I should not like to say a great deal about the future. What I can say is that the reason why no further cases of drugs have been dealt with in this way in the past is simply that my right hon. Friend has not considered that circumstances have arisen which would justify it. Obviously, he has these powers. Here again, they are powers which are no doubt effective in terrorem as well as being effective in actual use.
I turn to a matter touched upon by the right hon. Member for Smethwick namely the design and development contract for a new wireless set, which the Committee examined in great detail and on which it made some rather forthright criticisms. These criticisms were echoed by the right hon. Gentleman. Although the performance of this particular wireless set, which was urgently required for the infantry, was technically in advance of any earlier major Army radio equipment, its development did not or should not have presented such fearful problems as was the case, for example, with guided missiles. Moreover, the prospects of sub-

stantial export orders for this wireless set seemed to be good so that the manufacturers would have an incentive to compete for the development contract.
In all these circumstances, the Ministry of Aviation considered that this was a good occasion on which to carry further its policy of seeking fixed-price or other incentive contracts for development work wherever it was possible to do so. This is just what the Committee of Public Accounts has been urging. It was therefore decided as a deliberate experiment to invite competitive tenders with the object of placing the contract at a fixed price. I should mention that this is the first occasion in recent years on which it has been decided to go out to competitive tender for an important development project in the field of communications. It was realised that difficulties might well arise, but it was thought that the potential advantages, including the gaining of valuable experience, justified this course.
This approach was entirely satisfactory to the Treasury, as I have no doubt that the intention behind it would have been to the Committee of Public Accounts. However, I will not conceal from the House that when later on we discovered that things had not turned out quite as planned we ourselves in the Treasury expressed some concern. Later the Committee of Public Accounts took up the matter and made its views known.
Then followed an extremely careful re-assessment by the Ministry of the whole case—the tendering process and the subsequent action which followed it. This is very much a matter for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Aviation. The Committee's comments go to the heart of the responsibilities of his Department for the fair, efficient and economical conduct of development contracts of this kind. I would not want to trespass on his territory, even if I were sufficiently familiar with the details of this sort of operation.
I say immediately that I fully accept that we in the Treasury have a responsibility to satisfy ourselves that the Departmental systems of control of these sort of contracts are sound. This is just one example of the Treasury's general functions in the field of management.
As to this particular case, everyone knows that the Government have to develop and produce a great variety of


new equipment and do so in conditions of rapid technological advance and often working against time. This must involve careful and continuing assessment and reassessment of both the technical and the financial effects, and neither can be safely neglected. As the Treasury Minute says, we agree that invitations to tender should not be issued to firms whose tenders are likely to be rejected on extraneous grounds. This was one of the criticisms made by the right hon. Gentleman. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Dover that instructions to tenderers should be complete and precise and that the evaluation of their tenders should be on common criteria. This may all sound pretty obvious. In fact, it was not the intention to depart from these rules in this case. As regards the subsequent rejection of certain tenders, I understand that the necessity for this became clear only on examination of the tenders.
As regards the question of technical appreciations to which the right hon. Member for Smethwick referred, again we accept that if these are required it is better that their submission should be made mandatory rather than optional, as was the case here.
Perhaps I can just add this on this point. Competitive tendering does not normally lead to the award of the contract to one of the highest bidders. For obvious reasons, the contracts divisions of Departments responsible for heavy expenditure of this kind do not lightly accept such an outcome. I assure the House, and in particular the right hon. Member for Smethwick, that the lessons in this case have been learned and that the comments of the Committee of Public Accounts have had their effect.
When I first heard that the right hon. Member for Smethwick was to take part in this debate I am bound to say that it had not occurred to me that one of his objectives would be to use this occasion to continue the Opposition's campaign against retired Ministers and retired civil servants taking up jobs in industry and commerce. After all, no mention of this matter appears in any of the Reports of the Committee of Public Accounts which we are considering.

Mr. H. Wilson: The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong, because this question was taken up by the Committee. Naturally we hoped that there would be no serious point on it, but this was one of the points on which we took evidence. The evidence is included in the Report.

Mr. Barber: When talking about the Reports of these Committees most people understand that one is talking about the Reports without the evidence. At any rate, let me put it in this way. In what is termed the Report which I have here—the Third Report from the Committee of Public Accounts—the Committee did not see fit to make mention of this topic. That being so, I can only say that it seemed to me a little odd that the right hon. Gentleman did not do what I should have thought was normal, that is to say, give me notice that he proposed to devote quite a large part of his speech to dealing with this particular matter. Since he has raised it at some length, I must deal with it.
As regards ex-Ministers, it has already been established that there is not one tittle of evidence to support the suggestion that there was anything wrong. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has already shown up the campaign for what it is, a wholly unwarranted personal attack. Now, having failed in their attack upon Ministers, the Opposition turn their attention to civil servants.

Mr. Gordon Walker: I am perfectly certain that there will be another occasion on which we can thoroughly thrash this matter out. It will not just be settled now between us. I was only giving a sort of first shot in the battle.

Mr. Barber: It was rather a long shot, and it was, of course, a shot which no other Member of the House of Commons considering this matter today chose to make or even refer to at all. It was only the right hon. Gentleman who did so.

Mr. Gordon Walker: Of course, it was.

Mr. Barber: Since the right hon. Gentleman made his point at some length, I think that I am entitled to reply.
Having failed so far as Ministers are concerned, the right hon. Gentleman now turns his attention to civil servants. Although he did not see fit to give me notice that he intended to do so, I think it right, since I have some responsibility,


as Financial Secretary to the Treasury, for the Civil Service, to give him a reply.
What is the position? Specific and detailed rules are laid down about the types of case where consent is required before a civil servant can take a job in business. Listening to the right hon. Gentleman, one would think that all this was something new, something which had occurred only under the Conservative Government. It is, perhaps, significant that his hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason), in asking for a whole series of figures in a mass of Questions for Written Answer, dealt only with the period since the Conservative Government came into office. One would think that there was some quite different rule applicable during the period of the Labour Government.
In fact, the rules which are now being applied are identical to those which were being applied under the Labour Government. I put the question to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Smethwick: did he object to the rules when he was a prominent member of the Labour Government? Or was the standard which is now thought by him to be so inappropriate quite satisfactory in Lord Attlee's day? The truth, of course, is that, the campaign against Ministers having failed to stick, the Opposition, for want of something better, are switching the attack to the Civil Service. I have no doubt that it will redound to the discredit of the right hon. Member for Smethwick.
I return now to the real purpose of the debate, which was to consider these three Reports from the Committee of Public Accounts. The right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) has on previous occasions described what he called the in terrorem function of the Committee. In refuting the idea that the Committee is concerned only with the past, with bolted horses—a point made also by my hon. Friend the Member for Dover—the right hon. Gentleman pointed out that most of the Committee's recommendations are good for the future as well as for the past, even though they arise on particular cases. With respect, I think that there is a great deal in this.
The examination carried out by the Public Accounts Committee and its

criticisms are a constructive part of the machinery for securing efficiency in the public service. As the Treasury Minute shows, we do not agree with everything that the Committee says, but I can assure the House that the Departments and we in the Treasury take very much to heart what it says.

Question, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question, put and negatived.

Proposed words there added.

Main Question, as amended, put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House takes note of the First, Second and Third Reports from the Committee of Public Accounts in the last Session of Parliament, and of the Special Report from the Committee of Public Accounts.

Committee Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — SCOTLAND (NURSES' RULES)

8.10 p.m.

Miss Margaret Herbison: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Nurses (Scotland) (Amendment) Rules 1962 Approved Instrument 1962 (S.I., 1962, No. 2195), dated 28th September, 1962, a copy of which was laid before this House on 8th October in the last Session of Parliament, be annulled.
It seemed to me and to some of my hon. Friends that it was important to discuss these Rules. The only way in which we can discuss them is by a Prayer to have them annulled, but I assure the Under-Secretary of State at once that we have no intention of voting against them. I think that the majority of my right hon. and hon. Friends who have studied the Rules support them. I understand that they have come before us after considerable discussion and a great deal of thought on the part of the General Nursing Council for Scotland.
Nursing requires from the young men and women who undertake it a suitable temperament and it also requires very great understanding. Without those two qualities, no amount of academic qualifications will ever make a young woman or young man a good nurse. I support the Rules because I feel that the important job of nursing must attract young men and women who have at least minimum


academic qualifications. All the Rules call for are two passes at the O-level, one of which must be in English. It cannot be said that they set too high a standard of educational attainment for the young people who will become our nurses.
It is important to remember that one result of the Rules will be to enhance and improve the status of the nursing profession. Anything we can do to this end is well worth doing. I am very glad to note that the Rules apply not only to general nurses in Scotland, but to mental nurses, too. This is a great improvement on the Rules for England and Wales presented about two years ago. During the discussion on a Prayer to annul the English Rules, great objection was taken from this side of the House that there should be any difference in attitude towards nurses entering for general training as compared with nurses entering for training as mental nurses.
I welcome this provision in the Rules also because I know that people who understand these matters have long felt that mental nurses have been regarded as a sort of inferior species not on the same level as general nurses. The fact that the Scottish Rules apply to both will do something to bring both types of nurse into equal regard in the eyes of the public. It is important that this should be so. In all we are trying to do through the Mental Health Act and our new approach to mental health, we need to draw from our young men and women some of the very best to nurse our mentally sick.
The English Rules were passed over two years ago, but two years were allowed to elapse after they were passed before they came into operation. They came into operation only in July of this year. The Scottish Rules which we are now considering are to come into force on 1st January next, which means that they will come into operation in less than one month after we have discussed them in the House. Does not the hon. Gentleman consider that we are being too hurried in this matter? The O-level examination is very new in Scotland. I have in mind the 15-year-olds who left school in the summer of this year. Quite a number of them may have in-

tended later to become nurses, but they can have had no idea that two O-level passes would be required of them as a qualification by the time that they finally decided to do so. Had they known, they might have stayed at school to try to obtain the necessary passes.
When such an important subject as this comes up in a Statutory Instrument, against which we can only move a Prayer, there is no means open to us whereby, even in a small way, we can make amendments. Would it be possible to postpone the date of operation of the Rules for at least six months? This would mean that young people who had it in mind to leave at the next school-leaving date could stay on until the summer holiday in order to take the two O-level examinations. It is no longer possible to help those who left last summer, but we could in that way help those who were considering leaving at the next school leaving date.
I understand that many young people who enter pre-nursing schools do so at 15 years of age. The usual age for a young boy or girl to enter our secondary schools in Scotland is 12. This means that, if they enter pre-nursing school at 15, they have not had a chance to take the O-level examination. Is it proposed that in the pre-nursing school they will be able to take the O-level examination in English and one other subject? It is important to have an answer about that before we accept these Rules.
What is to happen in the future to the older man or woman who wants to take up nursing as a profession? I am thinking particularly of a young man who lives very near me. The Under-Secretary of State will know about the great number of pit closures in Lanarkshire. This young man was a miner. He is now working in a big mental hospital near his home. I have made inquiries and I am told by those in charge that he is doing a very good job and that they expect him to become a fully qualified registered nurse. Is there to be an opportunity for a young person like that who, after having taken up other work for a time, decides to become a nurse? Very often, these people prove to be among the best nurses we have in our hospitals.
In asking these questions, I direct the Minister's attention to the new paragraph (6, c) which is added by Rule 3:
for an interim period, until a date to be determined by the Council with the consent of the Secretary of State, an educational examination set by the Council.
Why "interim"? If it were not an interim period and if the Council in future were able to set its own examination, that older man, or the woman who left school at 15 and did not take even the O-level examination, would still be able to take the examination set by the Council. How are these people to enter the profession? Is it to be impossible in future for the type of young man I have described, or the office worker who may have a great desire to do so, to enter the profession? For such people there should always be an opportunity of entering.
Another point is connected with our system of secondary education in Scotland, particularly in some parts of the country. The Under-Secretary must be as aware as I am that there are secondary schools in Scotland where no child has the opportunity of even being presented for the O-level examination, far less of passing it. Does this mean that at 12 years of age a young boy or girl will never in future be able to enter the nursing profession?
About the older men and women of whom I have spoken and those in junior secondary schools who are not presented for the O-level examination, the Under-Secretary may tell me that they can be enrolled as assistant nurses or nursing auxiliaries. That may not be sufficient for people who become intensely interested in this kind of work. Because they want to enter the profession, many may enrol in the first instance as assistant nurses or auxiliaries and then feel that they would like to be fully trained and to become State-registered nurses. What chance will they have?
How long will the Under-Secretary tolerate a division such as we have in some areas of Scotland by which even in nursing some very good young people are prevented from becoming fully trained in the profession? Was the Secretary of State in consultation with the regional hospital boards before the Rules were presented? I imagine that the Department has had such consultations. Did the regional hospital boards think that

we shall be able to recruit in sufficient numbers men and women to fill all the nursing posts which must be filled? Does the Under-Secretary believe that if these Rules are passed tonight, as undoubtedly they will be, we shall have a smaller number of fully-trained registered nurses and a greater number of assistant nurses and nursing auxiliaries?
It is right that the House should know what kind of nursing profession we are to have in future. In asking these questions, I have had a deep concern that any young man or woman who wants to enter the profession ought to have the chance at least of getting the academic qualifications to make it possible for him or her to become fully qualified and have the status which men and women in this very noble profession ought to have. I hope that the Under-Secretary will be able to answer these questions.

8.25 p.m.

Mr. William Hannan: I, also, want to express the anxiety felt on this side of the House about the well-being and future of the nursing profession. I do not for a moment dissent from the terms of the Rules nor that the minimum requirements for entry should be two O-level passes in the Scottish Certificate of Education. The Explanatory Note to the Rules indicates what those standards are for those wishing to enter the nursing profession.
Although this matter is concerned with the nursing service, fundamentally it is an educational question. The choice of the standard asked for is about right. That is my view for what it is worth. We do not question the right of the Nursing Council to lay down these standards, but some doubts have been expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) about the Rules which will operate under the 1951 Act.
Entry into the profession takes place at about the age of 17½ to 18. In the past many of these girls have left junior secondary school at 15 and in the interval have followed some other job until achieving the age of entry to the profession. Girls of this category will not now be granted entry. Although we accept that the Council has the right to lay down standards for the profession, as have many other professions, most


of us regret that many of these girls who are suitable in other respects will not now have the opportunity of entering.
Under the new dispensation of education in Scotland they must have a minimum of two Ordinary level passes, which means four years at a senior secondary school and the attainment of the age of 16. While those of us interested in higher standards of education will welcome the fact that our children should attend schools until the age of 16, we recognise the handicap that this would entail, particularly for the nursing profession. The Government have been proclaiming the need for more nurses. Can the Under-Secretary of State say how many nurses are required in Scotland?
I know that it would be out of order for me to develop the point to any great extent, but I refer the hon. Gentleman to a Press report which appeared on Sunday saying that the hospitals in England and Wales have been told to stop recruiting nurses. Has anything of this character been issued in Scotland? According to this newspaper,
One of the country's biggest hospital boards has told 170 hospitals in South-East England to stop recruiting nurses for the time being—because of a 'cut expenditure' warning from the Minister.
This sort of thing does more damage to the recruitment of nurses than any other single action which the Government could take. We want some satisfaction on this point.
To return to the point which I was making, this change in educational standards may deprive the profession of many admirable recruits. Cannot the Department do something to counteract this possibility? For example, in view of the introduction of the new Scottish Certificate of Education—I should like the Under-Secretary of State to nod in the appropriate direction if I am right—it will be possible from this year for young people in junior secondary schools, leaving at the age of 15, nevertheless to continue with further education studies either in the evening or through the day and to obtain the two O-level passes.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. R. Brooman-White): The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. R. Brooman-White) indicated assent.

Mr. Hannan: The hon. Member indicates that I am right in my contention.
Would it not be an advantage for the Department to give greater publicity to this fact? Perhaps it is not well enough known among young people who leave at the age of 15 that they can continue their education and, by further education studies at evening classes, obtain O-level passes which previously have been open only to those who go on to the age of 16. I attach great importance to this facility in the general sense, since we have such a high rate of young people without jobs precisely at these ages, and it is particularly important in respect of nursing recruitment at this time when there is a crucial need of them.
Few junior secondary schoolgirls in Glasgow will have the opportunity or the ability to pass O-level subjects, because the Corporation, the local education authority, through its promotion scheme from primary to secondary schools, is already passing a relatively higher proportion of its pupils to senior secondary schools than do most other local authorities. It ranges around 40 per cent. Therefore, most of the young girls and young men who want to enter this profession will have that opportunity already in Glasgow, but this is not so in all parts of the country, and there are bound to be many young people in the higher reaches of the junior secondary school who, with just a little more encouragement and a little more information, might be induced to attempt the two O-level passes which are required.
I have a few questions to which I hope the Under-Secretary of State will furnish answers so that we may have a better picture of the whole situation. Can he tell us how many recruits are needed at the moment? What is required in the recruitment of nurses to bring us up to establishment? A rather more detailed question on which perhaps he may be able to get advice—how many entered in the last two years and, of these, how many had the qualifications now asked for? That information might help us to appreciate the proportion which will be denied the opportunity of entering.
I think that most of us recognise that the introduction even of these minimum


standards will have the desirable effect of reducing—a well-known term to the Under-Secretary of State—the wastage rate of those who fail in their nursing studies in the first year. Despite the existence of these minimum standards, however, will the teaching hospitals retain their own already recognised standards of entry? I understand that some of the teaching hospitals, in Glasgow at least, demand fairly high standards, higher than these minimum standards. If these new standards are to be the basis of entry, is it the intention that such girls will be acceptable and accepted in the teaching hospitals? By complying with these minimum requirements and the other standards which my hon. Friend mentioned—standards of suitability and temperament—wail a girl be eligible for entry to the teaching hospitals?
May I stress a point made by my hon. Friend: in view of the shortage of nurses, are we quite sure that it is sufficient to look at one end of the age range? The earliest age of entry is 17½ to 18, but what is the oldest? The Under-Secretary of State, no doubt, like myself, has been reading the very important articles by Professor Carstairs recently on the new status of women aged 40 and over. Women who have married young—and the tendency is for this to continue—find that by the time they are 40, their families have crown up and are themselves marrying at the ages of 18 to 20.
Bill Carron, of the A.E.U., and members of other organisations have recently been discussing the effects of automation and the great changes which will be brought into all our lives with such things as the all-night opening of restaurants and so on. The essential point which he made concerned the great change in the living conditions of people and in their working conditions. There will be all-night shifts and three shifts. In particular, women aged over 40 will have time on their hands and will be looking around for new interests when they are still relatively young.
This is a most important point. Not even Professor Carstairs forestalled the very able public health officer in Glasgow, Dr. Nora Wattie, who made the point that women of 40, having themselves reared families, have a deep sense of sympathy and understanding—the

qualities mentioned by my hon. Friend—and that they represented a big field for recruitment for some services.
The difficulty is educational and this is no doubt the importance of the paragraph on page 7, but I wonder whether the Department will look at this point again and bear in mind that there are many women who take an interest in public life and in other fields than that in which they have been engaged for the previous twenty to twenty-five years of their lives, and who might be induced even to return to places of training. I recall reading of a gentleman of 75 who went back to night school to learn a language—a very good thing, too. This is very much to be encouraged.
There will be these changes. Let the Department look ahead and try to plan for them. In the meantime, I shall be grateful for the information for which I have asked.

8.40 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. R. Brooman-White): I should like to thank both the hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) and the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Hannan) for giving us this opportunity for a short discussion of these Rules; for the constructive and helpful line they have taken, and for their declaration of specific intention towards the Rules as a whole. I hope that my remarks will not only allay all their own misgivings, but will also enable a more effective understanding of the Rules to be spread outside the House.
The hon. Lady rightly drew attention to the fact that these Rules have emerged from the work of the General Nursing Council which, as the House knows, has the statutory responsibility for considering all the questions about the entry of men and women to the nursing profession, and the training they have to undergo. The Nurses (Scotland) Act, 1951, provides that all changes in the rules made by the Council have to be approved by my right hon. Friend. Therefore, the Council's proposed minimum requirements have to be approved by the Secretary of State in this Statutory Instrument. I assure the hon. Lady that the local authority associations are in agreement with the proposed arrangements—

Miss Herbison: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman so soon, but I referred to the regional hospital boards.

Mr. Brooman-White: I am sorry; I am still wearing my old hat.
The hon. Lady asked about the speed with which the Rules are being introduced; and whether there might not more usefully have been a period of delay. It has been known for a considerable time that this subject was under discussion, and most people interested were well aware of what was taking shape. Over and above that, this leads to the broader question, the interim period. There is not a sort of chopper coming down on this at all.
As is made clear in the Rules, during the interim period—and this should be widely known—there are many ways in which people who have not the qualifications now or, through different circumstances in the future, may not find it easy to obtain them by staying on at school, can acquire the requisite O-level passes. Anyone who has left school can sit for the Scottish Certificate at a further education centre. Anyone who has left school and wishes to get a certificate of education can be sponsored by the education authority, and sit for it after private study, without attending classes.
Further, during the interim period the General Nursing Council will set this special examination, and we understand that the Council proposes to set one based on one of the tests of the National Institute of Industrial Psychology—which, I believe, is an intelligence test at the requisite level. It is very helpful that the hon. Members should have brought that out, because there is no age ban. The hon. Member for Maryhill referred to a gentleman aged 75. That may be a little aged for nursing, but there are certainly people of quite advanced age who, if they wish to achieve the requisite qualifications, will have these various methods open to them to do so.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether there was any ceiling or restriction on the recruitment of our nurses in Scotland. I assure the hon. Gentleman that regional hospital boards recruit as they wish within their financial limitations.

Mr. Harry Gourlay: I think that the hon. Gentleman has hit the nail on the head with regard to recruitment. He says that these regional hospital boards are allowed to recruit within their financial limitations, but surely it is the Secretary of State for Scotland who sets the financial limitations.
My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Hannan) said that instructions had been sent to hospital boards in England and Wales in connection with this matter, and from a reply which I received from the Secretary of State for Scotland I am not sure whether similar instructions have gone to Scottish boards. I hope that the Minister will reconsider this position, because these Rules appear to be implementing a decision of the Secretary of State for Scotland in two ways; first, by financial limitations, and, secondly, by raising the standard of entry to the profession.

Mr. Brooman-White: I think that the financial limitations cover a wide front, and one which I do not believe we would be in order in discussing on these Rules, but, clearly, the needs vary from area to area, and I think that the best way for me to deal with this is to come to the second theme of the speeches of the hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North, and the hon. Member for Maryhill.

Mr. Hannan: Will the hon. Gentleman please answer the direct question which I asked him? I quoted a newspaper report which said that because the Minister of Health had ordered a cut in expenditure, one hospital board had issued instructions to over 100 hospitals in a certain area to stop recruiting nurses. Have any such instructions been issued in respect of Soctland?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grimston): Order. We cannot pursue this question of financial limitations very far on this Statutory Instrument. I have allowed a passing reference to it, and I will allow a passing reply, but no more than that.

Mr. Brooman-White: The passing reply to that question is very short. The answer is, "No".
Misgivings have been expressed about the effect on standards and on total


recruitment, and whether this will result in an undesirable limitation on intake. The hon. Member for Maryhill used the word "wastage". The primary object of these Rules is to prevent wastage, and the primary object of the interim period is to provide every facility for people who have the necessary qualifications to come in. We want to get over the present difficulty of people undertaking a course and failing to complete it, which means wasted time for all concerned.

Miss Herbison: it seems that the hon. Gentleman is under the impression that there is wastage only because young men and women without the requisite academic qualifications, or without the intelligence to carry on, are entering the profession, but he must be aware, as I am, that wastage can be due to many things other than lack of intelligence or lack of academic qualifications.

Mr. Brooman-White: We are all well aware of that. I was simply referring to the type of wastage dealt with under these Rules. The hon. Lady referred to the standard of devotion and personal qualities demanded of those entering the nursing profession. After some experience many people find that they have not the same inclination to pursue this exacting profession with its enormous responsibilities and the need to take decisions affecting matters of life and death which they initially thought they had. There is also the problem of early marriage, which is perhaps socially desirable, especially if the girl marries the right man, but is unfortunate from the point of view of maintaining staff in our schools and hospitals.
On the question of the requirements of our hospitals as a whole and any possible misgiving that there may be about a limitation of the necessary recruits coming forward, I do not think that we need envisage this having a deterrent effect. The hon. Lady suggested improving the status to encourage people to come forward. We should encourage people who do not have the requisite educational ability to make the grade and become fully registered nurses to consider branching off into one of the other facets of the profession and becoming enrolled nurses or auxiliaries, which would be extremely helpful.
We are proposing to send out a circular to hospital boards of manage-

ment stressing the importance not only of the efficient use of nurses, but of ensuring that the highly skilled, fully registered nurse is employed, so far as it is humanly possible, exclusively on highly skilled work in which her capabilities are needed to the full. It is interesting that recent research by the Nuffield Regional Hospital Trust revealed that about two-thirds of nursing is ordinary bedside routine work.
We feel that the idea that the fully registered nurse is the only sort of nurse on whom attention should be centred has attained too great an importance in the public mind and perhaps in the minds of professional people. Obviously, she is a key person and can do any job, however difficult and responsible. But if we are to use our personnel properly we must get rid of the idea that enrolled nurses and auxiliaries should be used as the last resort. There is a real place for these people in our hospital system, and it is wrong that the registered nurse should continue to carry out all or any substantial part of work which can be done by other grades. We are most keen that people in other grades should be encouraged. It is a waste of skill if highly trained people spend time on work which can be done by people with less experience and training.

Miss Herbison: What the hon. Gentleman has said was just what I thought he would say. What worries me is what will be the proportion of fully trained nurses to the nursing auxiliaries or assistant nurses. Some hospitals will attract much more readily people with academic qualifications to become fully trained nurses than others.
Does the Under-Secretary of State envisage some of our hospitals in Scotland having a very small number of fully trained people and a very large proportion, perhaps too large a proportion, of auxiliary nurses? I agree that auxiliaries and others have a part to play and that we want fully trained nurses to do the job for which they are trained, but what steps does the hon. Gentleman propose taking to ensure that some hospitals are not left too much in the hands of the auxiliary nurse?

Mr. Brooman-White: That is largely a matter for the hospital boards. What we are thinking of sending out to them as a general recommendation—this has


not been finalised yet—is that in staffing arrangements they should try to apply the principle that a balanced staff should contain, in addition to registered and student nurses, both enrolled nurses and nursing auxiliaries. Normally, any staffing pattern which dispenses with or virtually omits any grade should be a matter for critical scrutiny rather than satisfaction.
That is the note that we want to strike. This is a matter which should be decided on its merits in the various hospitals and as their requirements demand. I hope that the general spirit of this approach will commend itself to the hon. Lady and to the House.

8.55 p.m.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: I offer no apology for going back to the subject of the junior secondary pupils and their relationship to nursing, which is important. I accept the Minister's remarks that there are further education services and that perhaps they can get the necessary qualifications by means of private study. The fact remains that there are junior secondary schools from which many of the best nurses, not only girls but also boys, have come. I think of mental hospitals such as Dingleton, near Melrose, where I know that most of the staff, who do a grand job, are from junior secondary schools.
In the light of this and of the inadequacy of his assurance, I wonder whether the Minister would further consider making certain that in every junior secondary school in Scotland, before each leaving date, a talk is given on the possibilities of nursing to the pupils. It would be quite easy to arrange for a team of either nurses or education experts or of people concerned with jobs or careers to go to those schools and explain to the pupils before they actually leave how they can go into nursing for a career by private study or by going through further education courses.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must not pursue that too far. It is not discussable very far under these Rules.

Mr. Dalyell: I accept your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and I think that there is no more that can be usefully said.

Miss Herbison: In the light of the discussion, although I have reservations, and we shall have to watch the position, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Orders of the Day — ROADS (BRISTOL- BIRMINGHAM MOTORWAY)

8.57 p.m.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Pym.]

Mr. Nicholas Ridley: I am grateful for this opportunity to raise the question of the continuation of the M.5 motorway from Birmingham to Bristol, southwards, through Tewkesbury where it now ends. I do this for two reasons, both equally important. First, I think that this motorway is vital to the traffic communications of the area and that my constituents will find it an immense benefit by relieving the crowded roads in the district; and, secondly, because of the effect which it has already had on Tewkesbury by the fact that this motorway ends just north of the town, disgorging all its traffic into its very narrow and ancient streets
The county council did not object to the Provisional Order for the new motorway because it felt that it would be unwise to comment on the situation until after the present section of the M.5 is finished, and it had actually seen what happened in Tewkesbury I think that it is my first duty to prove beyond any doubt that conditions in Tewkesbury have in fact deteriorated seriously. To that end, two surveys have been carried out. The first was carried out by the Traffic Engineering Unit of Birmingham University, which I am sure my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport would approve of as being a worthy source. It estimated that the traffic going through Tewkesbury had increased by about 30 per cent. since the motorway was opened.
In addition, the application of a Civic Trust scheme to that beautiful town is being considered and a traffic survey was carried out a year ago in that connection. Recently an identical survey was carried out, exactly one year later, because of anxiety about the motorway and the traffic problem. It was found that heavy


vehicles had increased in number by 60 per cent. These figures are only a rough guide and there may not be complete agreement about them, but I submit that they are evidence that there has been a great increase in the traffic going to Tewkesbury.
It is particularly serious during Bank holidays, the holiday season in the summer and on Saturdays when queues have stretched back to the end of the motorway, three or four miles north, and it has taken an hour to get through the town. It is, therefore, certainly true that although conditions were bad before they are now considerably worse and are having a serious effect already upon the life of the town.
It is rather surprising that the Chamber of Commerce in Tewkesbury, which, as I am sure my hon. Friend knows, is mainly a shopping centre and a town which people visit and stay at overnight and a market town for the surrounding district, should so wholeheartedly be hoping for the construction of a motorway to by-pass the town. The members of the Chamber of Commerce realise that a town clogged with heavy traffic and one where people cannot leave their vehicles for a moment is bad for their own trade. They would prefer to have the town by-passed and that people who wish to come in for shopping or for holidays should be able to stay in peace without being interfered with by this heavy traffic. This is proof enough that the town itself is very keen on this project. Trade is definitely falling off and the townspeople are very worried.
We should also take into account the structures of the ancient buildings in Tewkesbury. It is a town of some fame and of great beauty. Although the Abbey itself is far enough from the road to be safe, the vibrations caused by heavy vehicles in the main street cannot but cause deterioration to the ancient brick walls of the houses. This is an added reason why we should press forward with the by-pass.
In addition, since I suggested that this matter should be raised on the Adjournment, a proposal has been made for a 10,000 increase in the population of Tewkesbury as overspill from Birmingham. This is obviously another reason why tire main through traffic should be

taken out of the town so that it can have a life of its own without interference from traffic.
The motorway has been planned since before the war. The county council has been very active in suggesting routes and in helping the Ministry in every possible way to provide all the facilities needed. The main indictment I would wish to make against my hon. Friend's Department is that it has allowed one section to be planned, the contract to be let and the work to be finished without having a nearly adeqate follow-on for the remainder of the motorway to the south. Even if the motorway were completed in the shortest imaginable time from now, there would be a four-year gap between the northern section from Birmingham to Tewkesbury and the southern section from Tewkesbury to Bristol, and that probably would be pushing on extremely fast. It seems very strange that the Minister should have allowed this section to have been built to disgorge traffic on to Tewkesbury without having sufficiently advanced plans to carry it further to the south.
Planning, to my knowledge, has been going on for two years, because I have had correspondence with people who wished to find out whether the motorway would go through their land. I think that it has been going on even for at least three years, during which time this route has been under active discussion. But it is disappointing to hear that draft proposals were only fixed by the consultants six months ago. This is far too long a period to have been allowed to pass. There should have been a much smoother programming for this motorway and it should have been foreseen that stopping the motorway just north of the narrow streets of Tewkesbury would cause this serious problem of traffic attracted on to the motorway being spilled into Tewkesbury, there being no sensible way round the town which heavy vehicles and motor cars could use.
There is no point in criticising what has happened in the past. I want to concentrate on what should be done in the future. It has been suggested that it might be possible to re-route traffic to by-pass Tewkesbury. I have heard it said that some traffic can be sent down the Ross Spur and round Gloucester that


way, but that is a very long way round, and there were traffic congestions near Gloucester when the experiment was tried last summer. That suggestion does not provide a practical solution, and as Tewkesbury is at the confluence of the rivers Avon and Severn there is no chance of a short by-pass through the town without building a major bridge. We are forced to admit that there is no satisfactory solution, short of the provision of the motorway itself, with the new bridge over the Avon at Bredon.
The police have put up "No Waiting" signs throughout Tewkesbury, which have had some effect towards the alleviation of congestion, but it is thoroughly inconvenient to the residents of the town and to people who wish to shop and to stay overnight if they cannot leave their cars at the side of the road. From my own experience I can say that it has become extremely difficult to do that in Tewkesbury.
I am sure that there is no alternative but to press on with the next stage of the motorway at the greatest possible speed. I do not think that it was either necessary or right to attempt to build the whole section as far as Somerset in one bite. I am sure that the work should have been phased, so that each section followed upon the previous one. This serious problem will be solved if the motorway is taken just to the south of the City of Gloucester, about 18 miles from where it now ends.
If we concentrated on building the 18-mile section to the intersection lying to the South of Gloucester, there would be great advantage to many places other than Tewkesbury. It would take the traffic off the main Tewkesbury-Gloucester Road, which is one of the worst roads I know, as is confirmed by its accident record. Large sums of money have been spent in trying to improve the road, but it would have been far more sensible to use that money for the further construction of the motorway. There is also considerable congestion in the City of Gloucester and the ring road round it, all of which would be cured by the provision of this motorway to the south of Gloucester.
It is essential to get that section of the motorway scheduled to start at some definite date. In reply to the original

Question in the House, which made me raise this matter, my hon. Friend could give no date and no place in the programme even for starting the work. I have been informed by Gloucester County Council that it would be quite feasible to complete the statutory procedures and the necessary land transfers by the middle of 1964–18 months from now. This would mean pressing on quite quickly, but I am told that previous experience proves that this is possible.
It would probably take between two and two-and-a-half years to build the 18-mile section to which I have referred. That would take us to the end of 1966. I am sure that that is a practical proposition. If the argument is raised that the resources of skilled designers and administrators are not available, I would refer my hon. Friend to the letter from the county council, containing what I believe is no new offer, but one that it has always held to, namely, that it is prepared to do all the detailed designing of the bridges and the detailed setting-out work, and to complete the statutory processes and the land transfers, acting as agents for the Ministry, in the time stated.
That would have taken the load completely off anybody outside the county, for it would be able to let the contract and supervise the construction of the work. It is also worth saying at this stage, and I hope I am not being unduly selfish on behalf of my constituents, that this would be for the benefit of people living further south of Gloucester and around Bristol, and I hope it will be possible to programme the next section south so that it follows fairly soon after the completion of this one.
If my hon. Friend will not accept this suggestion and allow the county council to proceed, I think we shall be forced to the conclusion that it is only money which is holding up the construction of this section. I think I have already made the point that money has been spent on existing roads which would have been obviated if it had been possible to construct this section of the motorway at this time. I think that the situation is not a straightforward question of improving communications. It is a situation in which communications have definitely been worsened, more particularly for residents of Tewkesbury, by


the construction of only part of this motorway, and this in itself constitutes a special reason and makes it imperative that this part of the motorway should be constructed in order to save the strangulation of the town of Tewkesbury.
However, in any event, whether my hon. Friend accepts the suggestion and completes the 18-mile length, whether he accepts my time-table or whatever he does or does not do, I hope he will say tonight that this motorway will be given a place in the programme. It is not very encouraging for the victims of this situation not to have any date in mind when it might be started or be planned in detail. It is most important that we should get this section of the motorway put into a programme, so that we may see when it may take place and plan accordingly.
I am quite certain that the build-up of traffic will continue for four or five years, and that the town of Tewkesbury now has to take a very high proportion of the heavy traffic moving from the Midlands, Birmingham and the Black Country down to ports in the Bristol, Channel, South Wales or on the South Coast, while, at the same time, it has to take practically all the holiday traffic moving, not only from the Midlands, but from the north of England and Scotland, down to Devon and Cornwall. I know from experience that large numbers of people who live in the north of England and in Scotland choose the South Coast of England for their holidays when they have the time to get down there, and this is placing a very heavy burden indeed upon a town which was built over a thousand years ago and which was not built to cope with such a volume of traffic.
In conclusion, I would say that this is having a very serious effect on the life of Tewkesbury. I reiterate the point that the life of the town and its sources of income are being quite definitely affected, not only by this latest increase of from 30 to 60 per cent., but by the ever-increasing volume of traffic which has gone through Tewkesbury for the last twenty or thirty years. Up to a point, it was satisfactory, but, beyond that point, it has become a definite disadvantage from a business point of view, and, at the same time, from the point of view of the buildings, and that of the

residents, who cannot sleep at night for the noise, and for many other reasons indeed.
I hope, therefore, that my hon. Friend will be able tonight to give me some really good news about the possibility of putting this section of the road in his programme and I hope that he will accept Gloucestershire County Council's suggestion of building the motorway by the end of 1966. If I get an unsatisfactory answer, I shall have to pursue the matter in every way that is open to me.

9.15 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. John Hay): My hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) deserves both my thanks and congratulations; my thanks for being kind enough to give me notice in advance of the main points which he wished to raise and my congratulations for having in the course of the clay got himself somehow from Paris, which was fogbound, to London, which also was fogbound, in time to take part in this Adjournment debate. I do not know whether my hon. Friend remembers reading Around the World in Eighty Days. If he does, perhaps he might cut himself out for the part of a latter-day Phineas Fogg.
The subject of the debate which has been raised by my hon. Friend is the Bristol—Birmingham motorway. Before I turn to the problems of Tewkesbury, perhaps I may say a little about the project as a whole and the progress that we have been making with it. The Bristol—Birmingham motorway, which we call M.5, is planned eventually to run from Birmingham and the Black Country to a place called East Brent, about 20 miles south-west of Bristol. It will have two functions. It is intended, first, to serve as part of a fast motorway route between the Midlands and South Wales and, secondly, to connect the Midlands with the south-west of England by a route which will by-pass a number of towns like Worcester, Tewkesbury, Gloucester and Bristol itself.
The route of the motorway is planned to be largely parallel with A.38. The northern section, which was opened this summer, runs from the outskirts of Birmingham to Twyning, where it joins


the Ross Spur motorway, which runs down into Wales. It provides the first part, therefore, of the improved route to South Wales to which I have already referred.
The next 70 miles of M.5, when built, will carry the road from Twyning to East Brent. Already, we have had surveys made by our consulting engineers and my right hon. Friend has accepted their recommendations on the line that the road should take. Our consultations with the planning authorities are now going on and we can say, therefore, that we are at the first stage of a very long process of statutory procedures.
This first stage will be followed by the publication of a draft scheme for the main line of the motorway and, subsequently, by the publication of a draft scheme for the side roads which join or cross the line of the motorway. Both of these schemes will come forward as soon as they are ready.
I must emphasise one important thing which, perhaps, my hon. Friend has not fully understood. It was never intended that we should build the Bristol—Birmingham motorway as one operation. Our intention—this was one of the five major projects—was to build a motorway from Birmingham to South Wales and then, at a distance of a number of years afterwards, to add the section of which we are speaking tonight from the junction with the Ross Spur down to beyond Bristol.
My hon. Friend has clearly explained the traffic situation in the town of Tewkesbury and its effects. We entirely understand and sympathise with that situation. The town has developed at the junction of the Severn and Avon Rivers and there are, I believe, a number of other small rivers and streams which radiate from Tewkesbury rather like the spokes of a wheel. As a result it has been developed a road pattern of the same kind. Unfortunately, this has the effect of funnelling almost all the traffic approaching the town into the centre of the town.
I fully realise that the opening of the motorway from Birmingham to Twyning has not eased this problem. It is the very geographical advantages which created Tewkesbury at this particular

spot which give rise to the difficulties now facing us in trying to work out a solution to the traffic problem. The answer is a by-pass. That would do what no other road in the area at present does. It would cross the rivers, the roads and the railways which radiate from the town. When the motorway is built, that will be its precise effect.
We intend to extend the motorway from Twyning to some point south of Tewkesbury as soon as we possibly can. When this is done, it will entirely relieve the town of the heavy through traffic. However, we must face a number of problems which such a proposal entails.
First, there are a great many urgent national priorities into which the solution of Tewkesbury's problems must be fitted. I do not think anyone now disputes that the five major projects to which I referred a few moments ago—that is to say, the London-Lancaster motorway, the London-Newcastle improvement, the London-Dover motorway, the London-South Wales motorway, and the Birmingham-South Wales motorway—must each have first call on our national resources, because these are the schemes which traffic as a whole, and industrial traffic in particular, most wants urgently.
We are spending very large sums indeed on road works, but we just cannot do everything at once. It is one of these major schemes—the Birmingham-South Wales motorway—which has had some effect in aggravating the traffic problems in Tewkesbury and on the A.38. Because that motorway comes to Twyning, a point a little north of Tewkesbury, the traffic tends to accumulate as it leaves the motorway and continues along, A.38 to the south-west.
The situation in which Tewkesbury now finds itself, for the time being at any rate, is not unique. I am afraid that it is a feature of any new major trunk road scheme that we may do that it is found to create difficulties at any bottlenecks which still exist beyond its termination. It would be quite impossible to delay the vitally important national schemes until such time as we have been able to build by-passes in other places which may be so affected.
My hon. Friend was a little critical in suggesting that perhaps we should have


foreseen the effects on Tewkesbury of stopping the motorway at Twyning. We did in fact foresee them. The fact remains that if motorways are to be built at all they must sometimes stop at a point which will add to the traffic difficulties at the next bottleneck. The first section of M.5 to be built was that between Birmingham and Twyning at the junction with the Ross Spur. This was, and still is, a justifiable stopping place for that road, because it provides the immediately necessary fast route from the Midlands down to South Wales.
The section immediately to the south of it, by-passing Tewkesbury and going on down to the south-west and Bristol, presents us with some very formidable obstacles. To construct the next stage beyond Twyning we must build the bridge and viaducts over the River Avon and we have to cross the roads, railway and other waterways which I have mentioned around Tewkesbury. It was perfectly reasonable and logical, taking these factors together, to end the first section of the motorway at Twyning and deal separately with the particular problems which arise to the south. It would have been unthinkable to delay the construction of the first section until all the problems further south had been solved. That kind of planning, if we were to indulge in it, would not give us very many motorways because very few can be built all in one piece. We must plan to use our resources in a reasonably steady way. It is not the slightest good holding up the design of a scheme until everything is cut and dried and completely settled and then hoping that the resources to build it will be there.
My hon. Friend put forward another reason why it could not at this stage be taken any further. It might seem an attractive solution if we could build a short extension of the motorway to a point just south of Tewkesbury. That might well help to relieve the local situation in the town. The trouble is that the local geography, particularly the connecting roads back to A.38, militate against such a solution. My hon. Friend will have realised that such a short extension does not provide a solution to the problem, so he suggests that we should build the next 18 miles of the motorway by-passing both Tewkesbury and Gloucester. As it happens, his ideas

are very much in line with our own on this point.
The best solution, indeed the only sensible one, would be to extend the motorway by 18 or 20 miles. But that means that a by-pass for Tewkesbury would cost us about £12 million to £15 million. We intend eventually to build such a road, but that amount of money and that length of road must be programmed with a very full assessment of the motorway priorities that exist throughout the country. It is not an immediate or an inexpensive palliative which my hon. Friend suggests.
My hon. Friend went on to suggest that this length of motorway might be constructed by 1966, provided that we were to give it absolute priority over all other work. I think that his estimate is a little optimistic, but I would not quarrel generally with the idea that—again, I emphasise these words—given absolute priority the motorway might be constructed at any rate by 1967. I rather take leave to doubt the highly optimistic assumption of the county council that the statutory processes could be got through and the land acquired in so short a time as eighteen months from now. Be that as it may, I think that I have said enough to show that, however sympathetic we may feel towards the problems of Tewkesbury, those problems must be viewed against the national background as a whole. The road must be programmed in the light of a great many other urgent calls which we have on our resources and which equally deserve our sympathy.
The time for this precise programming has not yet arrived. I am sorry to say it, but that is the fact. My hon. Friend expressed some disappointment with progress on the surveys to fix the route. I assure him that there has been no avoidable delay. The preparation has been going on as smoothly and as quickly as it is possible to carry it out, and there is no call whatever for acceleration of these processes. Indeed, to do so might disrupt rather than promote smooth progress.
I promise my hon. Friend that we shall press on with the scheme as fast as proper observance of the statutory safeguards will allow. I have lost count of the number of times I have had to stand at this Box and plead the need


for us to go through the statutory processes which Parliament has laid upon the Minister as an answer to the charges, which we hear so often at Question Time, that we are dragging our feet in getting on with road improvement or motorway schemes.
On the other hand, the House will recall that, not infrequently, have I had to defend my Department against accusations of tyrannical behaviour, of riding roughshod over the small man or over local authorities and trying to bulldoze their rights out of the way in order to settle a scheme quickly. One gets the criticism both ways.

Mr. Charles A. Howell: The hon. Gentleman cannot win.

Mr. Hay: As the hon. Gentleman rightly says, we cannot win. Parliament has laid down in our highways legislation the statutory procedures to safeguard the interests of individuals and has prescribed the framework within which we are obliged to work. We cannot hurry these procedures too much, however irritating they may be or, indeed, they are to us in the Ministry who want to get on, or however irritating they may be to those whom a motorway will serve.
I assure my hon. Friend that we fully understand the situation in his constituency which he has put so forcibly tonight. I realise that the particular circumstances of Tewkesbury are as deserving of sympathy as conditions in other places where much the same situation often arises. I visualise that, in

any case, this road will be prepared in sections. It is not, I think, out of the question, when it becomes possible to allocate resources, that it could be programmed in parts. It might be possible to treat each part in accordance with special needs. However, it is still too early for me to say when and how this could be done.
What I can say is that in our preparatory work we shall isolate the section of road which both my hon. Friend and we in the Ministry regard as the section which we shall have to build to by-pass Tewkesbury. This should make it possible, when the time comes for the road as a whole to be programmed, to consider carefully the claims of Tewkesbury for relief against the demands which, no doubt, will be made for the other sections of the road.
I hope I have said enough to make clear to my hon. Friend and his constituents that we shall examine this situation with sympathy. However, I should be misleading all those who are now affected by the traffic on the A.38 if I did not make clear that, in present circumstances, we must reserve our decision about the programming of the motorway for some while yet. When we do take those decisions, I promise my hon. Friend, we shall take very fully into account every factor which operates on the situation, and not least the difficult position of Tewkesbury itself to which he has rightly drawn attention tonight.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes to Ten o'clock.